Balwinder Singh v. The State Of Punjab And Others



   



 !"# "$ "%""

"
"$ "

& '

(

# )*+

 ,+ -

((((++  ./  ,  0 /



(((((3

  (
 

# 

,+ -

((((++  ./  ,  0 /



(((((3

  (
45 

# ) 6+

((((++  ./  ,  0 /



(((((3

  (
7 

/8 ,+ -

((((++  ./  ,  0 /



(((((3

  $  0 $++   9( (  ":

  ;#< :( !

,
 .6", #"< 











 
 

  !

==== .6", #"<> !( & "<'

"

#





! 
 






$$
% 



 






  &





!


"

'
 




(


)


!
  

 




*

$+
+



 




, 

(,


!+

"



% + ,


, 
 
!+

"

 , 


$
!,
!

- 
& &!


  !
)


- 
. $ //



0
- 1
$  

$

!
 

$




 


(

$

 
+




 
+
,
 
 

,  '

2
"3 3"

&3&'

) 




$
 

! 


#



)4 *'" &3&'
  
 ! 

"Inter alia, contends that the petitioner has already retired prior to the issuance of the chargesheet and the alleged incident as stated in the chargesheet is also four years prior to the date on which the chargesheet has been issued and thus, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are barred under Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, VolumeII. It is stated that the said plea has been wrongly rejected in the impugned order by observing that the petitioner had retired subsequently i.e. on 30.11.2020 and the financial loss caused continued till superannuation and even till today. It is argued that the charges are to be seen on the basis of the chargesheet in which the the specific period has been mentioned and indisputably, the chargesheet had been issued after a period of more than four years after the said period. In support of his arguments,



learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Patiala and others Vs. Atma Singh Grewal, reported as 2014(13) SCC 666.

Notice of motion for 13.02.2024.

To be taken up at 1.45 PM.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Ferry Sofat, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appears & accepts notice on behalf of the respondentsState and seeks time to file reply. Reply, if any, be filed with the Registry, on or before the next date of hearing with an advance copy to learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned State counsel is directed to get instructions in the matter.

Further proceedings in the departmental proceedings are stayed till the next date of hearing."

#
 








 










 

 , 


,





, 
  
$

 
+







, 

!
 
#



 

$
 
,

! 


$




!   ,( (  ( $  0 +8  $  0  - $  0 /  "

)4 *'" &3&'

*3 ""

&3&3 &* &3&* "'

&3"7

&3 &3"8 & )4 *'& &3&'

*3 3'

&3"8
 9

&
+ &* &3&* "5 3:

&3"6

&& 3& &3":

;
38 3:

&3"7
 "'

&3"7 * )4 *68 &3&'

*3 &3":
 9

&
+ &* &3&* &* 3& &3":

35 &3":

'

)4 *75 &3&'

&7 3& &3&"

&* &3&* 3"

3'

&3"5
 "3 3'

&3"7<
&6 3'

&3"7 
3& 3:

&3"7
;

"5 &3"7

"3 "& &3"7



- 
& &!


- 


$+
!
 



 

! 
"Rule 2.2 (b)  The Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if, in a departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon reemployment after retirement.

Provided that─

(1) Such departmental proceedings, if instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re employment, shall after the final retirement of the officer, be deemed to be a proceeding under this Article and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service,

(2) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service either before his retirement or during his re* employment─ (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government;

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place 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;

(3) No such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution and The Public Service Commission should be consulted before final orders are passed.

Explanation.─ For the purpose of this rule:*



(a) a departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the officer or pensioner, or if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and (b) a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted─ (i) in the case of a criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or report of the police officer on which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made and (ii) in the case of civil proceeding, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the Court."

:


 


!
 




,$ 


,

,

 ,



+ 



$+








,
 ,

+
$








+  +

 

,$




$

 ,



 
, +

,
$  
 ,,
 ,





#

,


 
&
 ! 








$ ,


 






 !

$

 ,

 $+$


$
 
!



+


(

$

 
+ !
 
 

 
 


9


 - 




$
,

!
$

!  






$

,

 

 



/



$+



 ,
,
+






  


$ ,


!

 !% 



4

$
=$

! 
 

 

!  









> 
 (

$

 
+



 


, 







 





&

- 
& & !


- 

$
,

,

 


!
% >


#
?@!

$
) 





0Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Patiala and others
Vs
Atma Singh Grewal
reported as 2014(13) SCC 666





 
,
A






A
!+
 , 

% 
!+
+,
- 
& &!


- 






,




$
"5 &33&
 3* "& &33&


,

$
!+



 
+ $
$!
&33&



$


$+
# 




,$

 

! 

"1.

Petitioner No. 1 is the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB); Petitioner No. 2 is the Chief Engineer, HRDcumInquiry Officer and Petitioner No. 3 is the Senior Executive Engineer working in PSEB. Respondent was the employee of PSEB who retired from service, with effect from 30.4.2004. He had given the notice on 27.2.2004 for voluntary retirement which was accepted. As a result, the respondent stood voluntary retired from 30.4.2004. However, almost 4 years after his retirement i.e. on 7.1.2008, the respondent was served with the charge sheet levelling certain allegations against him, allegedly committed between 15.5.2002 to 3.12.2002. These charges which were for the period May 2002 to December 2002 were obviously of a period much earlier than 4 years before the serving of the charge sheet dated 7.1.2008 and much after his retirement when he had ceased to be the employee of PSEB. 2.

The Respondent filed the Writ Petition in the High

9

Court seeking quashing of the said charge sheet on the ground that it was barred in view of Rule 2.2.(B) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules 2 reserves right with the Government to withhold or withdraw a pension or a part of it under certain circumstances viz. when in judicial proceedings or departmental proceedings, such an employee is found to have committed grave misconduct or negligence. It also provides for recovery of peculiar loss, if caused. However, second proviso to the aforesaid provision stipulates the time limit within which the departmental inquiry can be instituted, in respect of an ex employee if it was not stated while such a Government officer was in service. The precise language of second proviso is as follows: "Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service whether before his retirement or during his reemployment: (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government;

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and if he has retired, the event should not be more than 4 years old.

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. 3.

In the present case since the changes were of the year 2002 and charge sheet served in the year 2008, it was manifest that the alleged event took place much more than 4 years before the serving of charge sheet and after his retirement. In this ground the learned Single Judge quashed the said chargesheet dated 7.1.2008. The petitioners chose to file appeal before the Division Bench which has also been dismissed by the Division Bench vide impugned judgment dated 20.8.2009.

4.

After hearing the Counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that in view of aforesaid admitted facts, second proviso of Rule 2 states at the face of the petitioner and no fault can be found in the judgment of the High Court."

"3

#
) 
A


) 




0Raj Pal
Vs
State of Haryana and others
reported as 2023(1) Law Herald

7

62

!






 
$ ,

$

!




, 

 

 
,$
$+>>,$
$+





$
$!,




$
,
 




(

$

 
+


 


$
,
 
 

, 
/


!


! 
!

- 
$

!


 $+


 +


 
+
 
!



 


 ,
B











 +












, 


$+





 
$(,

 
 $

+

$
-

 7
""

"&

 
,$

 

! 
"8.

A harmonious reading of Rules 12.2(b) and 12(5)(a) leads to only one irresistible conclusion that after an employee has retired from service there is a complete embargo on the initiation of departmental proceedings against him in respect of event(s) which may have taken place more than four years prior to the initiation of the departmental proceedings and that the date of initiation of such departmental proceedings is deemed to be the date when a charge* sheet is issued to the concerned government employee/pensioner/government employee placed under suspension. The apparent object behind these Rules seems to be that a retired employee, after the statutory period of four years, should be left to live in peace in the twilight zone of his life. The alleged misconduct on his part should be allowed to settle with the efflux of time.

5

himself.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 11.

To the same effect is the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Baldhir Singh's case (supra) wherein it was held as follows: * "6. A bare perusal of the aforementioned Rule makes it clear that Rule 2.2(b) (ii) places a complete embargo on holding of an enquiry against a retired employee for any event which has happened four years prior to the institution of enquiry. In other words, in case a departmental proceeding is to be initiated against an employee after his retirement, it cannot be in respect of an event, which has taken place more than four years prior to the date of the institution of inquiry. The rationale behind the rule appears to be that a retiree should not be subjected to undue hardship in the evening of his life after having rendered satisfactory service to the State.

If old matters which have been settled by afflux of time are permitted to be reopened after expiry of period of four years then a retiree may not be in a position to defend himself because the evidence in his favour may not be available. The coemployee after retirement might have settled at far flung places and memory may not serve such witnesses and the retiree. The 'Sword of Damocles' in the shape of departmental inquiry cannot be kept hanging on the head of the retiree for all times to come and he should be allowed to live in peace after the statutory period of four years of his retirement has come to an end. Moreover, the learned State counsel has not been successfully able to controvert the argument and judgments (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner." 12.

Similarly, another Division Bench of this Court in Sub Inspector Puran Chand's case (supra), while considering a similar issue, held as follows: "7. Pointed attention of this Court has been drawn to clause (2) of the aforesaid rule 2.2(b). A careful perusal of the same would show that in case a departmental proceeding is to be initiated against an employee after his retirement, it cannot be in respect of an event which took place more than four years from the date when the proceeding is initiated. It is clear that the

 

charge sheet was issued to the petitioner in the instant case on 24.11.1998, whereas the incident in question in respect to which he has been proceeded against relates to the year 1988 i.e. one decade prior to the issuance of the charge sheet. It is obvious that issuance of the aforesaid charge sheet is wholly unacceptable in law, as the same is clearly barred by the provision of clause (2) of rule 2.2(b) extracted above."

""

# 
, 

!

!+


 
 




#

, 



 ,
,



 ,




! $


!>

$

$
!+
$

 +
,
$

,$
$$


 !


 ! $



 
 ,

,

 
 ! 

 

,
,

 
 !


&

- 
& &!
 

!
,

 
#

, 



 ,

,
 !
$







!
$

 
 
!
!





 


,$

  ,



$


!



 
 
>

!

 
!


 ,
  "&

A

, $

!+


 
 
!
  "*


 

- 
& &!


- 


!  
 !




,


! 


,$


+




$ 

,



 
, +


,
$



 

,,

&



$+

 


$

#



+

  


,>,
,




, $  


!







,
 ,

&

- 
& &!


- 


+


 
&
, $




!






 , 




!
$
 ,

 




 
 ! 

,+
 $
+


+
,
$



,$ $$



> 

!
 !+




!


+
$


, 

/


, $



 




 +


!
$



 

>
 
! 9




&

- 
& &!


- 
 !


$ 



,
 $!



, 
 

 


,
$ 
!+

$+
 

!
$
$  
 


 !

!+



 





, $
/ 
,$


?@!

$
) 




  !
  






+,

!


 
- 
& &!


- 



! 
"5 &33&
 *"

"& &33&




,,

,

! $


, 
#
$ ,



  

+
!
!+

&


- 
& &!


-  
,+





 


$ ,




 ,

$ ,
, 


 !%  ,
,
$
,



% 

& .6", #"< '

:

 9>  

!

$  naresh.k 4
>(,C D 4
!C D