IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12176 of 1991 Date of decision: December 22, 2008. Sohan Lal, Inspector Grade-III ...Petitioner(s) v. The State of Punjab & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri TPS Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the charge-sheet dated 21.8.1972 (Annexure P-4) as well as the order dated 19.6.1991 (Annexure P-6) whereby the Inquiry Officer came to be appointed. The petitioner joined the Department as a Sub-Inspector on 13.5.1960. In the year 1971, while the petitioner claims to have remained on medical leave, the respondent-Department's case appears to be that he remained absent from duty and was accordingly placed under suspension. The respondent-Department decided to charge-sheet the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 21.8.1972, which was, however, served upon him vide an order dated 18.4.1991 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 18.5.1991 (Annexure P-5) but the same having been found unsatisfactory, an inquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 19.6.1991 (Annexure P-6). Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. While admitting the writ petition on 6.8.1991, the Motion Bench stayed further proceedings before the Inquiry Officer. Meanwhile, the petitioner has retired from service on superannuation. In this view of the matter, this writ petition has been rendered infructuous for the reason that there is no allegation of causing any monetary loss to the State Exchequer and after retirement, no punishment, except on a proven charge of causing loss to the State Exchequer, can be imposed on a retired employee. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous, however, with a clarificatory direction to the respondents that the petitioner's retiral benefits, if any yet to be released, shall be released on the assumption that no charge has been proved against him. December 22, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge