CWP No.10456 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * CWP No.10456 of 2007 Date of decision : September 11, 2008 * * * * * Raghubir Singh ............Petitioner Versus Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and another ...........Respondents * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.D.S Mann, Advocate for the respondents. * * * * * M.M KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this court by filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer for quashing Memorandum No.7104 dated 16.5.2007 (Annexure P-3) issuing charge sheet to him by the Managing Director, Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, respondent no.2 with the allegation that less storage gain of 406.72 quintals of wheat stock pertaining to the crop year 1998-99 has been given by him. Brief facts of the case are, that the petitioner after rendering long service has retired from Punjab State Warehousing CWP No.10456 of 2007 2 Corporation (for brevity, `the Corporation') on 30.11.2006. On 11.5.2007, the Corporation-respondent has deducted a sum of Rs.4,97,510.00/- from the post retiral benefits of the petitioner, although, it has released balance amount of all other pensionary benefits. On 16.5.2007, a charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner with the allegation that he along with Sh. Darshan Singh, Warehouse Manager has delivered 171912 bags weighing 162438.34 Qtls. of wheat to the respondent-Corporation pertaining to the crop year 1998-99 at State Warehouse, Batala after the storage period of three months and has given less storage gain thereby causing loss of Rs.455010.24 paise to the Corporation including 50% incidental charges. The petitioner filed reply to the charge sheet on 21.6.2007 taking the stand that no disciplinary action could be initiated against him after such an inordinate delay and placed reliance on Rule 2.2(b) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, Part I (for brevity `the Rules'). A copy of the reply has been placed on record as Annexure P-4. In response to the notice of motion issued by this Court, the respondents have filed reply and it has admitted facts about the date of charge sheet and the filing of reply. It has been claimed that the petitioner has been charge sheeted for causing financial loss to the Corporation while working at the State Warehouse, Batala. Mr. Vivek Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in L.B Gupta vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, 2001 (4) RSJ 127 and argued that there is a blanket prohibition for initiating departmental CWP No.10456 of 2007 3 proceedings against a retired employee in relation to the events which transpired four years before the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. He has also placed reliance on proviso 2 of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Rules. He has drawn our attention to the impugned charge sheet dated 16.5.2007 to show that the charges pertain to the crop year of 1998-99 and the petitioner stands retired on 30.11.2006. Learned counsel has maintained that charge sheet having been issued on 16.5.2007 is beyond the period of four years preceding the date of occurrence i.e 1998-99. Mr. NDS Mann, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the recovery proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner at any time even after retirement and there is no such bar of limitation. However, he has not been able to point out any provision whereby, the effect of Rule 2.2(b) (ii) could be nullified. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the paper book with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have reached the conclusion that the writ petition deserved to be allowed. Rule 2.2(b) of the Rules in unequivocal terms support the argument of the petitioner. “2.2 (b) Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment:- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government; CWP No.10456 of 2007 4 (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place not more than four years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer during his service”. A perusal of the aforementioned Rule makes it clear that a complete embargo has been imposed prohibiting holding of an enquiry against a retired employee for any event which has happened four years prior to the initiation of a enquiry. Therefore, a departmental proceeding cannot be initiated against an employee in respect of an event that has taken place more than four years prior to the date of institution of such an enquiry. The matter came up for consideration before a Division bench of this Court in Baldhir Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others (CWP No.17458 of 2007 decided on 18.7.2008 of which one of us (M.M Kumar, J) is a Member. We have also noticed that the judgment in L.B Gupta's case (Supra) and in the case of M.P Goswami vs. State of Punjab (CWP No.17382 of 2005 decided on 7.8.2007) also fully apply to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned charge sheet dated 16.5.2007 (Annexure P-3) is quashed. CWP No.10456 of 2007 5 Consequently, the respondents are directed to release all the pensionary benefits of the petitioner which have been withdrawn in respect of recovery sought to be made in pursuance to the charge sheet. The needfull shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( M.M KUMAR ) JUDGE September 11, 2008 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE