Pepsu Road Transport Corpration v. Kultar Singh

LPA-1545-2026 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-1545-2026 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.05.2026 PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ...Appellant(s)

VERSUS

KULTAR SINGH

...Respondent(s)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present:- Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for the appellant. **** JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral) 1.

The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent Act for setting aside the judgment dated 16.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.34529 of 2024. 2.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent retired on 30.04.2016 after serving the appellant-Corporation for 22 years. He submitted that while serving as a driver, the respondent caused an accident pursuant to which MACT proceedings were initiated and compensation was awarded. He further submitted that although the accident had occurred in the year 2010 but the respondent was served with a charge-sheet only on 03.09.2019 and thereafter, on the basis of the said charge-sheet, an inquiry was conducted and a punishment order was passed for recovery of 1/4th share from the payable pension for a period of one year. 3.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the writ petition filed by the respondent was only to the limited extent of seeking payment of interest on account of delay in the release of retiral benefits as no retiral benefits

LPA-1545-2026 (O&M) -2were paid to him by the appellant at the time of his retirement. He further submitted that before the learned Single Judge, the respondent had attached a translated copy of the punishment order, wherein it was stated that the chargesheet was issued on 03.09.2010, whereas the vernacular version, which has been attached with the present appeal would show that the charge-sheet was issued to the respondent on 03.09.2019, which was therefore a material discrepancy.

4.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation. 5.

Some of the facts of the present case have now been put straight by the learned counsel for the appellant. On 02.10.2010, an accident was caused by the respondent while he was serving as a driver with the appellant-Corporation. The respondent retired on 30.04.2016 upon attaining the age of superannuation and he was not granted pensionary benefits at the time of his retirement. The retiral benefits were paid subsequently and especially the gratuity was paid on 19.04.2022. However, there was certainly a delay in the release of the pensionary benefits.

6.

Admittedly, at the time of retirement of the respondent i.e. on 30.04.2016, no disciplinary proceedings or charge-sheet were pending against him because as per the learned counsel for the appellant, the charge-sheet was issued on 03.09.2019 and therefore, at the time of retirement of the respondent, neither any disciplinary proceedings nor any charge-sheet was pending against him.

7.

The law with regard to as to whether an employer can issue a charge-sheet after the retirement of an employee is no longer res integra. It is a settled law that after the retirement of an employee, there is a cessation of

LPA-1545-2026 (O&M) -3master and servant relationship. In the absence of any provision for enabling an employer to initiate departmental proceedings, no such disciplinary proceedings can be initiated or conducted after the cessation of the master and servant relationship. In the present case, the charge-sheet was issued to the respondent after about 31⁄2 years of his retirement with regard to an accident which he had caused in the year 2010, meaning thereby that the charge-sheet was issued after about 9 years of the accident, whereas in the meantime, the respondent had retired on 30.04.2016.

8.

Therefore, we are of the considered view that there was no justification for the appellant to have withheld the retiral benefits, which right had accrued and crystallized in favour of the respondent at the time of his retirement in the year 2016. The respondent was therefore certainly entitled for grant of interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits. 9.

We find no error in the impugned judgment passed by learned Single Judge and there is no ground available with the appellant for seeking interference by this Court in the present Letters Patent Appeal. 10.

Consequently, the present Letters Patent Appeal is hereby dismissed.

11.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) JUDGE (AMARJOT BHATTI) 27.05.2026 JUDGE Chetan Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No