CWP NO.11836 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 16.2.2009 Atma Singh Grewal ...Petitioner VERSUS Punjab State Electricity Board and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Sarwan Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for respondents Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner has challenged the validity of the charge-sheet dated 7.1.2008 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent no.2 and the order dated 17.6.2008 (Annexure P-6) whereby respondent no.3 has been appointed as Enquiry Officer to hold the enquiry in respect of the charges against him. The challenge is based upon short ground that the same is violative of Rule CWP NO.11836 of 2008 2 2.2 (b) (ii) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol.II as applicable for the employees of the respondent-Board. The aforesaid Rule, inter alia, provides four years period for initiation of disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of an employee of the Board in respect of the events for which the employee is charge-sheeted. From the perusal of the charge-sheet (Annexure P-2), it is evident that the alleged act of misconduct is said to be between 15.5.2002 to 3.12.2002. The petitioner retired voluntarily vide order dated 29.4.2004. The impugned charge-sheet has been issued on 7.1.2008. It is contended by Mr. Vikas Chatrath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the retirement itself contains a rider to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and thus, the period of four years contemplated under the aforesaid Rule will not come into operation because of the stipulation contained in the retirement order. This argument is totally misconceived. From the reading of the rule, it is absolutely clear that the period of limitation of four years has to commence preceding four years from the date of initiation of departmental proceedings. Sub-rule (3) (b) of Rule 2.2 defines the date of initiation of departmental proceedings as the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Officer or the pensioner, or if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date. Sub rule (3) (b) of Rule 2.2 reads as under:- “2.2...... (3)...... (b) a judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be CWP NO.11836 of 2008 3 instituted:- (i)in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of the police officer on which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made; and (ii)in the case of civil proceeding, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the court. Note:- As soon as proceedings of the nature referred to in the above rule are instituted, the authority which institutes such proceedings should without delay intimate the fact to the Accountant General. The amount of the pension withheld under Clause (b) should not ordinarily exceed one-third of pension originally sanctioned including any amount of pension to be so withheld, regard should be had to the consideration whether the amount of the pension left to the pensioner in any case would be adequate for his maintenance.” In the present case, the statement of charge was issued on 7.1.2008 and thus the limitation for the purpose of computation of four years has to commence from the date. There is no exception under the rule and thus, the argument is not sustainable. The charge-sheet having been issued beyond the period prescribed under the statutory rule is liable to be quashed. Mr. Chatrath, however, vehemently argues that the respondents may be permitted to initiate civil proceedings for the recovery of the loss caused to the department. Needless to say, if law permits the respondents CWP NO.11836 of 2008 4 to make recovery by initiating civil proceedings, the present order shall not be impediment for this purpose. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The charge-sheet dated 7.1.2008 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent no.2 and the order dated 17.6.2008 (Annexure P-6) are hereby quashed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 16.2.2009 MFK