IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19657 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:11.01.2010 Darshan Singh Chauhan .....Petitioner versus The Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation. …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. K.L. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.P.Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the continuation of proceedings of the Corporation beyond the stage of superannuation and the writ petition came to be filed on an attempt of the Corporation to withhold the retiral benefits on account of the result of the enquiry finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. 2. The sole point that would fall for consideration is whether the Corporation is entitled to proceed with the enquiry after the superannuation of the employee. It is not denied that the petitioner was superannuated on 30.11.2006 and the proceedings for alleged misconduct of the employee came to be instituted and the findings were given subsequently. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Civil Writ Petition No.19657 of 2008 (O&M) - 2 - would try to make a distinction of the situation from the fact that the charge-sheet had been issued earlier but it was only a process of enquiry that continued subsequently to his superannuation. The whole thing will depend on whether the relevant rules of the Corporation allow for continuance of the disciplinary enquiry subsequent to the date of superannuation. The learned counsel refers to Rule 61 of the Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Financial Corporation Staff Regulation, 1971 which allow for the applicability of the Government rules/instructions issued from time to time in regard to the admissibility of all kinds of leave in the case of Corporation employee. The adoption that Rule 61 refers only to the admissibility of leave and not for continuation of the departmental enquiry. This issue has been specifically considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Jena Versus Board of Directors, O.S.F.C.-1999(2) SCT 651. In that case, the question was whether continuation of disciplinary proceedings after superannuation without any provision in the rules and regulations, would be permissible. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was referring to the fact that there was no provision in the Provident Fund Regulations for continuation of disciplinary proceedings after retirement. The proceedings taken subsequent to the date of retirement, the Court held automatically lapsed and a decision taken subsequent to superannuation was held to be a nullity. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent however refers me to a decision of yet another subsequent ruling in U.P.State Sugar Corporation Limited and others Versus Kamal Swaroop Tondon Civil Writ Petition No.19657 of 2008 (O&M) - 3 - -2008(2) RSJ 107. The matter related to the proceedings of a show cause notice and imposition of minor punishment and recovery from the retiral benefits. The issue in that case was with reference to the recovery of certain amounts found to be due from the employee from the retiral benefits. It is one thing to determine the amount of liability and make it deductable from the retiral benefits and quite another for continuation of enquiry to determine whether the liability exists or not. I have not been shown any particular regulation which allows for applicability of the Punjab Civil Services Rules proprio vigore for, it is only a specific power contemplated by rules that would make possible for an employer to continue the proceedings. If there are no specific regulations, the continuation of enquiry from the stage of superannuation would be wholly impermissible for the master and servant relationship ceases by own superannuation. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.State Sugar Corporation Limited and others(supra) that the relationship must be taken as continuing till all the retiral benefits are paid shall be understood in the context of a claim by a person for payment of retiral benefits. UCO Bank and others Versus Sanwar Mal- 2004(4) SCC 412 relied on by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.State Sugar Corporation Limited and others(supra) dealt with two situations: (i) the permissibility of deduction from retiral benefits and (ii) till what time could the relationship of an employer-employee be deemed to be subsist. The payment of gratuity and other retiral benefits are in the very nature of things paid only on the superannuation and if the rules provide for deduction of any amount of loss that an employee had caused, that Civil Writ Petition No.19657 of 2008 (O&M) - 4 - would be wholly different from a situation which we have to address in this case viz., of the entitlement of an employer to pursue a domestic enquiry beyond the stage of superannuation. Either the regulations provide or they do not. I have not been shown through any provision that provides for continuation of proceedings under regulations. The impugned action is contrary to law and as rightly contended by the petitioner liable to be quashed and accordingly, quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent states that the petition itself is not maintainable since the workman had filed earlier another writ petition for the same relief and that ended in dismissal. I have seen through order in the writ petition No.11134 of 2007. At the stage when the writ petition was originally disposed of, the management had contended that the enquiry was in progress and therefore, the Hon'ble Court granted to the management to conclude the proceedings. It appears that the petitioner had filed an application for review and the Court observed that if any adverse order was passed against the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer, then the petitioner would have the remedy to challenge the same in accordance with law. The right to challenge that order would include a right to contend that the order itself was passed without jurisdiction and that is what I have held that the continuation of the enquiry after the superannuation was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the regulation did not provide for the same. 5. The writ petition succeeds and the impugned order dated 29.09.2008 is found to be without jurisdiction. The amounts which have been held back by the respondent shall forthwith be paid with interest at Civil Writ Petition No.19657 of 2008 (O&M) - 5 - 9% from the time when the amount became fell due. The entire exercise shall be made within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. The writ petition is allowed with costs assessed at Rs.5,000/-. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 11.01.2010. sanjeev