CWP No. 754 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 754 of 2010 Date of decision February 19, 2010 Krishen Kumar Solanki ....... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioner seeks to challenge the charge sheet issued to the petitioner making an imputation that the petitioner had given a false caste certificate as though he belonged to Scheduled caste when he actually was only a Mochi which was a backward class and not a Scheduled caste. This declaration was sought to have been made in the year 1974 but the action has been visited after his retirement on 31.8.2009. The challenge by means of the writ petition is that the Punjab Civil Services Rules which are applicable to the petitioner sets out that no departmental action for any misconduct could be taken as per rule 2.2 (b) after the retirement, unless sanction of the government was granted and that further it shall not be in respect of any event more than four years before such institution. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he had obtained employment by giving a declaration of a status as a Scheduled caste in the year 1974 and if at all, there was any misconduct it had taken place even in the year 1974 and being an event more than four years prior to the date of his retirement, there was no power for the government to grant such sanction or for the authorities to levy a charge sheet. The CWP No. 754 of 2010 2 learned counsel refers to a judgment of this Court in S.S. Arya Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Panchkula and others reported in 2009 (4) RSJ 553 to the effect that a departmental action cannot be taken and charge sheet levied for an event which had taken place more than four years prior to the retirement. He further relies on a judgment in R.C.Gupta Vs.P.S.E.B in 2002 (1) RSJ 509 where the case was with reference to a charge sheet which was served on 26.3.1999 for the events in the year 1984. The contention was that vigilance enquiry had started before the petitioner's retirement and at the time of retirement the petitioner had given an undertaking that if he was liable to pay any amount on the basis of such vigilance enquiry, he would make the payment as regards the same and that therefore, the person would not be covered under rule 2.2 (b). Such a contention was rejected by the Division Bench of this Court in the case referred to above. 3. This decision makes out a different position as already adverted to. It is a declaration in the year 1974 that constituted the beginning of misconduct. The misconduct continues every day during the continuance in service when the privilege of the Scheduled caste status continues till his retirement. The period of limitation which was applied by the Division Bench in the case referred to by the learned counsel will have no application as outlined above. The action taken by the petitioner is perfectly justified and it shall be open to the petitioner to contest the charge sheet by defending that he had not made any misrepresentation or that he belonged only to Scheduled caste and not to backward class as attributed to him by reference to the School certificates of his children or that the certificates will have no bearing or that they were wrongly stated. It shall be premature to intervene at this stage and quash the charge sheet even before the petitioner joins issues on the merits of his contentions appropriately by replying to the charge sheet. CWP No. 754 of 2010 3 4. The writ petition is dismissed under the circumstances. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 19, 2010 archana