Paramjit Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others
CWP-28343-2024 (O&M) 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 and as if the officer had continued in service.
(2) such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service whether 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 not more than four years before such institution;" 2.
The short point involved in the present writ petition is as to whether the charge-sheet for initiation of disciplinary proceedings issued after retirement of the petitioner (petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2017) can be in regard to an incident which is more than four years old.
3.
The aforesaid rule places a complete bar for issuance of a charge-sheet when issued after the date of superannuation in regard to any incident which took place four years before the issuance of the charge-sheet. 4.
In the present case the charge-sheet, which is issued on 09.07.2021 (Annexure P-30) reveals that the date of misconduct is between 03.01.2008 to 23.04.2010 which was about 11 years before the issuance of charge-sheet issued after the superannuation of the petitioner.
CWP-28343-2024 (O&M) 5.
Thus, the impugned charge-sheet cannot survive the test of law and has to be quashed on anvil of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II.
6.
Accordingly the present writ petition stands allowed and the charge-sheet and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom stand quashed.
7.
The precious time of this Court has been wasted in adjudicating this avoidable piece of litigation which the petitioner was compelled to initiate due to cause given by the respondents in blatant violation of law. This litigation is de horse the very basic object of Litigation Policy of the State of Punjab. The State instead of conceding has filed affidavit running in 56 pages opposing the claim of petitioner tooth & nail. Thus, the act of respondents is nothing short of misusing the judicial process. Therefore the State is saddled with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- which shall be credited in favour of Poor Patients Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh with liberty to State to recover the said cost from the salary of the authority issuing the impugned charge-sheet.
(SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE July 10, 2025 archana Whether speaking/reasoned?
:
Yes/No Whether reportable?
:
Yes/No