Civil Writ Petition No. 3518 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3518 of 2011 Date of decision : 19.07.2011 Bhim Sain Pruthi ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. K.L. Dhingra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner, who superannuated from the service in the rank of Deputy Superintendent on 31.12.2004, is not being allowed to live in peace by the respondents. The old issue of 90's has been raked up against him, that too after his retirement, to impose 2% cut in his pension. This order has been passed despite the fact that the petitioner was exonerated in the inquiry ordered against him under Rule 7 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') held after his retirement. The petitioner, accordingly, has approached this Court on number of grounds to challenge this order. The petitioner claims to have a neat and clean record throughout. Nothing happened till the date of his retirement. He was suddenly served a charge sheet under Rule 7 of the rules on Civil Writ Petition No. 3518 of 2011 17.03.2005. The allegation made against the petitioner was that he failed to frame a charge sheet against another person Sh. Kali Ram, Junior Engineer, where a prompt action on his part was required. It is alleged that the petitioner had sat over the issue for more than three years resulting in non-recovery of loss of ` 9568/- from Sh. Kali Ram. The petitioner submitted his reply giving explanation that he had officiated in this provincial division from 18.07.1998 to 17.09.2001 as Deputy Superintendent. A complaint against Sh. Kali Ram, JE had been received during 1990 i.e. before the date of joining of the petitioner. The petitioner urged that during his tenure nothing about the charge sheet was brought to his notice and no reference was received by the office. Still inquiry officer was detailed to conduct the inquiry. The Enquiry Officer absolved the petitioner of the charges and recommended that the charges be dropped. Respondent No. 2 still did not accept this report and after recording disagreement note has imposed a cut of 2% in his pension for 5 years. It is seen that respondent No. 2 had left no option with the petitioner even in the show cause notice by clearly giving his mind to impose the proposed punishment. Accordingly, the petitioner also complains against respondent No. 2 to have prejudged the issue even at the time of issuing show cause notice for imposing cut in his pension. On this and on various grounds, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to impugne this order. Reply has been filed. There is not much dispute in the facts except that the respondents would maintain that the charge sheet was required to be prepared by the petitioner and reference in this regard has been received by him over which he kept on sitting. Civil Writ Petition No. 3518 of 2011 The disagreement note recorded on 07.01.2010 nearly after 6 years of the retirement of the petitioner, refers to communication dated 15.09.1995 whereby the Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No. 1, PWD (B&R) Branch, Kurukshetra had required the petitioner to frame the charge sheet under Rule 7 against Sh. Kali Ram. The Executive Engineer claimed to have submitted a memo dated 11.01.2002 submitting draft charge sheet under Rule 7 of the Rules. The petitioner is accused of having failed to submit the charge sheet and the matter was allegedly kept by him without being dealt for a period of 3 years during his incumbency. On this basis, the respondent recorded a dissent note and thereafter this punishment has been imposed. Incidental non-recovery of loss against third person due to non-preparation of a charge sheet that is termed as misconduct for proceeding against the petitioner after his retirement. I doubt if this can be a misconduct that too a serious enough to warrant this action after retirement of the petitioner. Why the respondent remains quiet for all the years and took action only after retirement? Apart from other grounds, the delayed approach on the part of the respondents to proceed against the petitioner would in itself be enough to interfere in the impugned order. Otherwise also, it is inequitable to proceed against the petitioner for minor issue of some alleged loss caused by third person amounting to ` 9568/-, which could not be recovered has led to this punishment and consequences for the petitioner. The inquiry officer finding that the allegation against the petitioner was not proved apparently have been differed with after expiry of nearly six years of the retirement of Civil Writ Petition No. 3518 of 2011 the petitioner. It may not be appropriate for this Court to appreciate the facts but this delayed approach and prejudged manner in imposing punishment on the part of respondent No. 2 apparently is made out. The petitioner has been punished for the stale allegations, which also could not be sufficiently established. The proceedings are held after retirement. These factors are enough to call for interference. Coupled with all these is a fact that there is no direct misconduct alleged against the petitioner. The punishment imposed on the petitioner, therefore, cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to the costs. Recovery, if any, made from the petitioner shall be refunded to him. July 19, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE