CWP 14331 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.14331 of 2010 Date of Decision: 13.08.2010 **** Chand Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab and Sind Bank and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Rajnish K. Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner who was in the Officers’ Grade has retired from the services of the respondent-Bank w.e.f. 31.03.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. While in service, he was served with a charge-sheet dated September 24, 2002 (Annexure P4) and a criminal case was also registered against him vide FIR No.120 dated 02.08.2002 under Sections 408, 418, 420 IPC at Police Station City Faridkot. (2). The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and faced the trial as well. The petitioner earned acquittal in the criminal case vide order dated 06.01.2007 (Annexure P6) against which the appeal CWP 14331 of 2010.doc - 2 – preferred by the prosecution was also dismissed vide order dated 28.07.2009 (Annexure P7). (3). During this long period, no step to proceed further with the disciplinary proceedings was taken. (4). On the eve of his retirement, the petitioner was served with a letter dated 31.03.2009 (Annexure P3) informing him that the charge-sheet dated 24.09.2002 was kept in abeyance till the conclusion of the criminal case and that “the disciplinary proceedings will continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final orders are passed in respect thereof”. (5). The petitioner’s representation to drop the disciplinary proceedings has also been turned down. (6). As noticed above, the petitioner has already retired from service. Prima facie, it appears that the pendency of the above mentioned charge-sheet cannot per se be a valid ground to withhold the retiral dues of the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner has represented the authorities time and again but nothing has been released so far. (7). In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take an appropriate decision on the petitioner’s claim for the release of his retiral dues without prejudice to the CWP 14331 of 2010.doc - 3 – pending enquiry, by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (8). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 13.08.2010 vishal shonkar