IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 8621 of 2004 Date of Decision: January 16,2009 Union of India and another v. A.K.Bhasin and another Present: Ms. Renu Bala Sharma, Advocate for Union of India/Petitioners. ..... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The Union of India is aggrieved by the order Annexure P-5 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, dated 19.3.2004 vide which the orders dated 27.12.2002 and the charge-memo dated 12.11.2002 were quashed. The Union of India was further directed to release the entire amount of retiral benefits to respondent No.1 within a period of three months. The brief facts of the present case are that Shri A.K.Bhasin, respondent No.1, was working as a Store Keeper Grade-III in the CSD Depot, Ambala. He was prematurely reitred on 26.12.1998. As his retiral benefits were not released, he filed OA 459-HR-2000 which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dated 3.7.2000 with a direction to the Union of India to decide his representation. The representation was rejected and, hence, respondent No.1 filed OA No.1027/HR/2003 before the Tribunal. It was averred by him that as he has been prematurely retired on 26.12.1998, therefore, no action has been initiated against him after a lapse of four years. [ 2 ] C.W.P. No. 8621 of 2004 It was submitted by respondent No.1 that the charge-memo dated 12.11.2002 was served upon him on 27.11.2002 i.e. after a lapse of more than four years of his retirement and, hence, as per Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 the charge-memo is liable to be quashed. The Tribunal accepted the plea of the respondent and quashed the charge-memo. It is against this order that the Union of India has filed the present writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-memo was served upon respondent No.1 after following due process and opportunity was also afforded to him. A perusal of Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 shows that no departmental proceedings shall be instituted against a Government servant after four years of his retirement if the same shall not be instituted while he was in service. Rule 9 (2) (b) (ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 is reproduced as under:- “(2) (b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his re-employment. (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President. (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution”. In the present case as respondent No.1 had been prematurely retired on 26.12.1998 and charge-memo was served upon him on [ 3 ] C.W.P. No. 8621 of 2004 27.12.2002, therefore, a period of four years had elapsed before the serving of the charge-memo. In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) JUDGE ( K.C. PURI ) JUDGE 16.1.2009 Rupi