CWP No.5805 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.5805 OF 2007 DATE OF DECISION: 28-01-2008 C.L. Sharma .....PETITIONER VERSUS H.F.C. and another .....RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL PRESENT: Mr.Munish Jolly, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner claims a direction to the respondent to release his pensionary benefits. The petitioner retired from the services of the Corporation on 31-03-2005 after putting 35 years of service. He was charge-sheeted on 07-04-2005 i.e. after his retirement. The Enquiry Officer appointed to investigate the said charges, dropped charge No.2 but in respect of charge no.1 it held that the petitioner did not act responsibly and prove to have over assessed the property. When the matter was put up before CWP No.5805 of 2007 2 the competent Authority in pursuance of the said Enquiry Report, the same was ordered to be assigned to some other senior Officer of the Corporation. However, the Disciplinary Authority has not given any reason as to why the matter is being sent for de-novo enquiry. It is the case of the petitioner that the enquiry so entrusted to the Enquiry Officer has not been finalized. Therefore, it is alleged that the retiral benefits of the petitioner has been withheld without any justified reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be charge-sheeted after his retirement. Still further though the Disciplinary Authority was competent to dis-agree with the findings recorded by the Enquiry officer but could not order de-novo enquiry by appointing another Enquiry Officer without any reason. Learned counsel for the respondents could not refer to any Rule which authorizes the Corporation to initiate disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of an employee. Still further, Mr.Gupta could not support the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority Annexure P11 whereby the matter was ordered to be de-novo enquiry by another Officer. Since, there is no provision for proceeding against the petitioner after his retirement and that there is no reason given by the Disciplinary Authority so as to order de-novo enquiry, the action of the respondents in withholding the retiral benefits of the petitioner is wholly unjustified. Consequently, we allow the present writ petition and direct the respondents to compute the retiral benefits and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. If the payments are not made within three months, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest CWP No.5805 of 2007 3 @ 9% from the date the amount became due till its payment. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 28, 2008 JUDGE jt