IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 8535 of 1992 Date of Decision: 10.03.2009 R.N. Attri, son of Sh. Ayodhia Pershad, at present Tourist Officer, Punjab Government, Tourist Office, New Delhi. ... Petitioner Versus 1. Secretary Tourism, Punjab Government, New Civil Secretariat, at Chandigarh. 2. Joint Secretary Vigilance, Govt. of Punjab, Vigilance Department (Vigilance Branch), Chandigarh. 3. The Inquiry Officer, Vigilance Department, Punjab, SCO No. 3003-04, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. * * * * HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the Charge-Sheet (Annexure P4), dated 18.12.1989, wherein the petitioner was alleged to have cheated the government in the sum of Rs. 437.95 (Rupees four hundred thirty seven and ninety five paise only). The petitioner was working as Reception Officer at Tourist Office Centre, Nangal, in the year 1974, under Shri Surjan Singh Chaudhary, a Tourist Officer. The audit party raised an objection in respect of amount of Rs. 437.95 (Rupees four hundred thirty seven and ninety five paise only) on the basis of entries for the period from 02.05.1974 to 17.09.1975, in the cash book. On the basis of the said report, the Vigilance Bureau lodged an FIR No. 55 of 82. The investigations concluded holding the petitioner was not liable for criminal action. Thereafter, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide impugned charge- sheet. The Writ Petition challenging the said charge-sheet came up for hearing before this Court on 06.07.1992. An order of stay of further proceedings was passed. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has since attained the age of superannuation in the year 1998. The petitioner was charge-sheeted in the year 1989 in respect of amount of Rs. 437.95/- during his posting as Reception Officer at Tourist Office Centre, Nangal. The charge-sheet was issued after 15 years of the alleged misconduct. There was order of stay of further proceedings by this Court as well. The petitioner has since attained the age of superannuation. In view of the said facts, at this stage i.e. after more than 35 years, it will not be in the interest of justice to permit the respondents to continue with the charge-sheet for the alleged misconduct. In view of the above, the charge-sheet dated 18.12.1989 (Annexure P4), is quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed with no order as to costs. (HEMANT GUPTA) 10.03.2009 JUDGE Amodh