CWP No. 17908 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17908 of 2008 Date of Decision : 30.11.2009 Rakesh Misra .......... Petitioner Versus The Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Federation Limited & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. K.L. Arora, Advocate. Mr. Navkesh Singh, Advocate. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This writ petition under Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking quashing of prejudicial part of the orders Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2, on the plea that the departmental proceedings could not be continued after superannuation of the petitioner on 31.8.2008. It was also contended that the retiral benefits of gratuity and leave encashment of the petitioner could not be withheld by the respondents illegally as there is no provision in the Markfed Employees (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1990 for continuation of the departmental proceedings after superannuation nor there was any provision for withholding the retiral CWP No. 17908 of 2008 2 benefits. The petitioner while working as Executive Engineer with respondent-MARKFED was issued a charge-sheet on 30.7.2008 on the allegations that due to imposition of penalty of Rs. 63.34 lacs regarding the work relating to construction of Govt. Polytechnic for Women, Ropar, the respondent suffered a loss of Rs. 25,86,043/- with future interest. The charges were contested by the petitioner, however, no final decision thereon could be taken, as the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.8.2008. The petitioner, therefore, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the charge sheet in view of the settled law that in absence of statutory rules permitting the continuation of enquiry after retirement / superannuation no disciplinary proceedings can be continued when the relationship of master and servant comes to an end. The notice was issued. The learned counsel for the respondent placed on record the order dated 26.10.2009 vide which charge sheets issued to the petitioner has been dropped. The petitioner has filed affidavit along with Annexures P-9 & P-10 showing that the retiral benefits withheld have also been ordered to be released on 25.11.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that in pursuance to the sanction the amount stands released to him, therefore, the relief CWP No. 17908 of 2008 3 claimed by the petitioner has been rendered infructuous. Mr. K.L. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount wrongly withheld by the respondents, as he was entitled to release of retiral benefits on his superannuation i.e. 31.8.2008. In support the contention the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay L. Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. JT 2000(5) SC 171 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down that when the retiral benefits are retained by an employer without any reason, then the employee is entitled to interest on the retiral benefits from due date till payment. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of R.S. Randhawa Vs. State of Punjab & others 1997(3) RSJ 318 to contend that a writ for claiming interest on delayed payment is maintainable, and the employee is entitled to 12% interest on the delayed payment, in case, the benefits are withheld without any reason, whatsoever. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the petitioner is also entitled to the interest for the reason that while making the deduction the respondents had also deducted the amount along with interest, therefore, the petitioner on the principle of reciprocity is entitled to interest. On consideration, I find no force in the claim of interest. It is not a case where the retiral benefits were withheld without any reasonable CWP No. 17908 of 2008 4 cause. Admittedly, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner wherein the petitioner was charged of causing huge loss running into lacs of rupees to the respondents, it is only on non-availability of provision in the rules, that proceedings were required to be dropped. It is pertinent to mention here that the charge sheet against the petitioner was ordered to be dropped for want of authority with the employer to continue with the proceedings and the petitioner has been exonerated of the charges levelled against him. It cannot be said that the retiral benefits were withheld without any reasonable cause. On receipt of notice of writ and on coming to know that the respondents have no right to continue with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner, on account ofhis superannuation, the charge sheets has been immediately withdrawn, and the withheld amount released. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner to seek interest would not be applicable to the facts of this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner also challenged the issuance of charge sheets on the plea that the payment of the final bill of the contractor was made in the year 1995, whereas the penalty was imposed by the petitioner in the year 1997, with regard to a different work, therefore, it could not be a basis to charge sheet, especially when in the contract the respondents earned the profit of seven crores. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. This Court has not permitted the respondents to CWP No. 17908 of 2008 5 adjudicate on charge sheet on merit for the reason that, there was no relationship of master and servant between the parties after superannuation. It will, therefore, not be appropriate for this Court to make observation on the charges as to whether they were justified or not. The prayer for grant of interest is declined. The writ petition is disposed of having been rendered infructuous. 30.11.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE