IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13421 of 2005. Date of Decision: 10.2.2009. Nanak Chand ---Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others ---Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Saurabh Chugh, Advocate for respondent no.2. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Petitioner was working as Joint Manager with the respondent no.1 Corporation and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.12.2001. At the time of his retirement the Corporation gave no objection for release of his retiral benefits. Consequently, he was paid the retiral benefits including the pension as sanctioned vide order dated 3.4.2003 (Annexure P-2). Petitioner, after more than two years of his retirement, has been served with charge sheet vide Memorandum dated 17.2.2004 relating to the allegations relating to the period of 1995-96 and another charge sheet dated 20.7.2004 relating to the allegations for the year 1998-99. Though, the petitioner has submitted his reply to both the charge sheets, however, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid charge sheets and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings being illegal and without jurisdiction. It is admitted case of the parties that the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol.II have been adopted by the respondent-Corporation to regulate the service conditions of its employees. Rule 2.2. (b) of the rules deals with the disciplinary action after the retirement. Under Rule 2.2. (b) no enquiry is permissible in respect to an incident more than 4 years from the date of initiation of the proceedings. In the present case both the impugned charge sheets have been issued in the year 2004 relating to the incidents for the CWP No. 13421 of 2005 -2- period 1995-96 and 1998-99, admittedly more than 4 years from the date of issuance of charge sheets. Such a recourse is contrary to the aforesaid rules and is liable to be set aside. A similar view has been expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in respect to employee of the respondent- Corporation in CWP No. 10456 of 2007 decided on 11.9.2008 and affirmed in SLP wherein following observations have been made:- “ A perusal of the aforementioned Rule makes it clear that a complete embargo has been imposed prohibiting holding of an enquiry against a retired employee for any event which has happened four years prior to the initiation of a enquiry. Therefore, a departmental proceeding cannot be initiated against an employee in respect of an event that has taken place more than four years prior to the date of institution of such an enquiry.” In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned charge sheets dated 17.2.2004 (Annexure P-5) and dated 20.7.2004 (Annexure P-6) are quashed. Consequently, the respondents are directed to release all the pensionary benefits of the petitioner which have been withdrawn and recovery made in pursuance to the impugned charge sheets. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 10.2.2009 lucky