IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 15963 of 2010 Date of decision: 31.05.2011. Ved Parkash ...Petitioner Versus Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. As per the report, reply is not filed. Counsel for the respondents, however, says that he has already filed the reply and hands over the copy of the same and is placed on record. The writ petition as such is taken up for hearing. The petitioner was working as Assistant Manager with the respondent-Department and was retrenched on 13.05.2002. He claims that his service record was good and there was no adverse remarks against him. Sever to eight years after his retrenchment, the petitioner is now served a charge sheet on 21.04.2010 under Rule 26.1 of Staff Service Rules with the allegation that he was required to carry out inspection of wheat stock fortnightly and had never reported to the Headquarter that the wheat stocks were damaged due to rain. The petitioner claims that he had not committed any illegality or irregularity and there was no damage to the wheat stock Civil Writ Petition No. 15963 of 2010 -2- during the period he was incharge or was supervising the same. The petitioner would aver that wheat stock was purchased during Rabi 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 and stored at Sagar Plinth, Gupta Plinth and Rori covered godown at Cheeka. Jasbir Singh, Accountant is stated to be the incharge of the wheat stock on 30.03.2001 and thereafter Randhir Singh was incharge of the wheat stock. After retrenchment, the charge of the wheat stock was taken over by Krishan Kumar, Storekeeper. While taking over charge Krishan Kumar had clearly mentioned in the charge report that he had taken over the charge without any pressure and was made to count wheat stocks and there was no loss or damage. The wheat stock was also inspected by Sh. Vinod Kumar, Assistant Manager, who did not find any damage or shortcoming of the wheat stock. The petitioner, accordingly, has challenged the action of the respondents and issuing this charge sheet to the petitioner after 8 years of his retrenchment. The first issue that the respondents would have to satisfy is whether it can proceed against an employee, who was retrenched that too 8 years prior to the service of the charge sheet. The petitioner may or may not be responsible of the loss. That is not material. The issue is whether the respondents would be competent to issue charge sheet to an employee, who has been retrenched eight years prior to date of serving charge sheet. After retrenchment, the relationship of employer and employee had come to an end. Accordingly, the petitioner would not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the respondents to take action under the regulations governing the condition of service of the petitioner while in employment. The action Civil Writ Petition No. 15963 of 2010 -3- of the respondents in issuing charge sheet to the petitioner appears to be total unjustified and beyond jurisdiction. The same, therefore, cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed. The charge sheet to the petitioner is set aside. It is made clear that the petitioner can not be held responsible for any lapses in regard to the charges served on him. May 31, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE