Civil Writ Petition No. 14799 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 14799 of 2010 Date of decision:- 20.7.2011 Dula Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Parveen Kumar Garg, Advocate For the petitioner. Ms. Anu Pal, AAG Punjab. RITU BAHRI J. This petitioner has sought quashing of charge-sheets dated 19.6.2009 and 27.7.2009 (Annexures P-2 and P-3) on the ground that these have been issued in violation of Rule 2.2(b) of Punjab Civil Services Rules. The petitioner has retired from the services of respondents on 28.2.2008 as Inspector Grade-I in the Food and Supplies Department. The charge-sheets have been issued after more than four years from the date of retirement. The allegation is that due to negligence in performance of his duties, the recovery of the losses, caused to the Government, is being sought. The inquiry officer has been appointed on 29.9.2009 and 13.11.2009 respectively. Mr. Parveen Kumar Garg, Advocate has argued that as per Rule 2.2 (b) sub clause (ii) if departmental proceedings have not been initiated while the officer was in service then the same cannot be initiated after more than four years of his retirement in respect of any event. Petitioner has retired on 28.2.2005 and the charge-sheets were issued on 19.6.2009 (Annexure P-2) and on 27.7.2009 (Annexure P-3). The charge-sheets are, thus, delayed for a period Civil Writ Petition No. 14799 of 2010 -2- beyond four years. He referred to a judgment of this Court in State of U.P. Versus Shri Krishna Pandey 1996(3) SCT 418 and Gulzar Singh Khokhar versus State of Punjab 1995(1) SCT 381 to contend that the preliminary inquiry cannot be initiated after a time limit prescribed in Rule 2.2(b)(ii) of Punjab Civil Services Rules. Ms. Anu Pal, AAG Punjab has argued that a preliminary inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner in the year 2007. His explanation was sought vide letters dated 14.12.2007 and 22.10.2007, which are well within the period of four years as contemplated under Section 2.2(b)(ii) of Punjab Civil Services Rules. The petitioner had filed reply on 07.1.2008. This was sent for communicating to the Director, Food and Supplies, Chandigarh on 14.2.2008. Another explanation was sought from the petitioner vide letter dated 22.10.2007 (Annexure R-3). The issuance of charge-sheet is continuation of disciplinary proceedings initiated in the year 2007, therefore, as per Rule 2.2(b)(ii) it is within the time limit, prescribed in the Punjab Civil Services Rules. She argued that shortage in the wheat stock was detected in the year 2006 and the department had no occasion to seek his explanation before the date of his retirement and as per provision of Section 2.2(b) of the Rules the action of the Department is not against the rules. The petitioner cannot escape the liability to make good the loss caused to the State when the shortage in the wheat stock was detected by the authorities. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has retired on 28.2.2005. He was posted in Moga Circle as Inspector Food and Supplies Grade-I. As per the allegations in both the charge-sheets, the wheat Civil Writ Petition No. 14799 of 2010 -3- stocks were stored way-back in the year 2000-01 and 2002-03. A shortage in the stock was detected and as per charge-sheet (Annexure P-2) due to shortage, total financial loss amounting to Rs.1432386.68/- was caused to the Government. In the second charge-sheet (Annexure P-3) the assessed loss comes to Rs.8484580.15/-. The allegation is that he has embezzled the stock of wheat in connivance with other staff for personal interest. Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Volume II is reproduced below, which deals with the charge-sheet after retirement:- “2.2(b) The Government further reserve to themselves the right of witholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if, in an departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including the period of his service, including rendered upon re-employment after retirement: Provided that :- 1. Such departmental proceedings, if instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the officer, be deemed to be a proceedings under this article and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service; 2. Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment :- i. Shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government. ii. Shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and iii. Shall be conducted by such authority and in Civil Writ Petition No. 14799 of 2010 -4- such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer during his service. 3. No such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution; and The Public Service Commission should be consulted before final orders are passed.” This rule came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Devkinandan Prasad versus State of Bihar AIR 1971 SC 1409 wherein the Supreme Court has held that under Rule 2.2(b) the Government can institute a departmental inquiry against an employee even after his retirement. These proceedings can be instituted as per the conditions under Rule 2.2(b). I have gone through the above rule, one thing is clear that after a period of four years of the event after retirement the disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated against a retired employee. The departmental inquiry can be said to be initiated against an employee when a charge-sheet is issued to him till that time the inquiry can be sought to be under consideration. In P.R. Nayak versus Union of India AIR 1972(..) 219 the Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 3(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969, and held that departmental inquiry cannot be treated as initiated till the date of issue of charge-sheet. Though word 'institute' has been used in Rule 2.2(b) of the Rules, in my opinion the interpretation given by the Supreme Court to the word 'institute' can aptly be applied for interpretation of the word “instituted” used in Rule 2.2(b). Therefore, a departmental proceeding cannot be said to have been instituted against an employee under the relevant punishment Appeal Rules as Civil Writ Petition No. 14799 of 2010 -5- also under Rule 2.2(b) of the Rules till the issue of the charge-sheet.” These judgments have been followed by this Court in Gulzar Singh Khokhar versus State of Punjab (supra). In this case the charge- sheet was served after the time limit of four years, prescribed under Rule 2.2(b). Since the proceedings were initiated after a gap of four years, the department was directed to release the gratuity, which was withheld on account of disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. Versus Shri Krishna Pandey (supra) while examining 351(A) of the State of Central Service Pension Rules has held that the event of loss has to be within four years of the date of retirement and if the charge-sheet is served after four years the State disable itself by deliberate omissions to take appropriate action against the employee and allowed the officer to escape from the provisions of 351-A of the Rules. Since the proceedings were not initiated well in time, a direction was given to pay the pension. The High Court's judgment directing payment of pension was upheld by the Supreme Court. In the facts of the present case both the charge-sheets have been issued beyond four years from the date of retirement i.e. 28.2.2005, as contemplated under Rule 2.2(b)(ii) of the Rules. The writ petition is allowed and charge-sheets dated 19.6.2009 (Annexure P-2) and 27.7.2009 (Annexure P-3) are quashed. 20.7.2011 ( RITU BAHRI ) Vijay Asija JUDGE