LPA No.234 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No.234 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.02.2010 The Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation ....Appellant. Versus Darshan Singh Chouhan ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. T.P. Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. By way of present appeal, order dated 11.1.2010 passed by learned Single Judge thereby allowing CWP No.19657 of 2008, has been assailed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working in the Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation – appellant. The service conditions of the employees are governed by the Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation (Staff Regulations), 1971. Petitioner retired on 30.11.2006 on reaching the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years. Just a few months before his retirement, LPA No.234 of 2010 2 the department issued charge sheet on 2.2.2006 against the petitioner for violating instructions saying, petitioner has, without following the guidelines, disbursed the cheques to the beneficiaries directly without the registration of the conveyance deed. The petitioner’s case is that cheques were disbursed on 30.9.1991 by the then Minister Incharge in a public function and the petitioner was nowhere involved in the disbursement of the cheques and that the petitioner was bound to obey the instructions of higher officers and the Minister who were present in the public function. As per the petitioner, charge sheet was issued after 15 years i.e. in 2006 while the incident is of 1991, just to deprive the petitioner from retrial benefits. 3. Undisputedly, in an inquiry, the only thing found proved against the petitioner was that he has disbursed the cheques directly to the beneficiaries in public function in the presence of Minister Incharge and the higher officials. Undisputedly, the petitioner was not found guilty of any embezzlement. The only thing which was alleged and found to be proved against the petitioner is that he has violated departmental instructions in the matter of disbursement of the cheques. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that departmental enquiry can go on even after retirement and the view taken by learned Single Judge contrary to it, is wrong. Undisputedly, the petitioner stood retired on 30.11.2006. Undisputedly, the alleged incident is of 1991. Undisputedly, cheques were disbursed in a public function in the presence of Minister Incharge and higher officers. Undisputedly, cheques were handed over to the beneficiaries by the Minister. Undisputedly, the LPA No.234 of 2010 3 petitioner is not found guilty of embezzlement. Undisputedly, the only charge against the petitioner is that he has not followed the departmental instructions in the matter of disbursement of the cheques. 6 In view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly as the petitioner has already retired in 2006 and further that the petitioner is not found involved in any embezzlement, hence we do not think it proper to adjudicate the question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Question of law raised by the learned counsel for the appellant can be decided in appropriate cases. 7. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 19.02.2010 sk.