CWP NO.11836 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
DATE OF DECISION: 16.2.2009
Atma Singh Grewal ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Punjab State Electricity Board and others ...Respondents
CORAM
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI
PRESENT: Mr.Sarwan Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for respondents
Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has challenged the validity of the charge-sheet dated
7.1.2008 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent no.2 and the order dated
17.6.2008 (Annexure P-6) whereby respondent no.3 has been appointed as
Enquiry Officer to hold the enquiry in respect of the charges against him.
The challenge is based upon short ground that the same is violative of Rule
CWP NO.11836 of 2008 2
2.2 (b) (ii) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol.II as applicable for the
employees of the respondent-Board. The aforesaid Rule, inter alia, provides
four years period for initiation of disciplinary proceedings after the
retirement of an employee of the Board in respect of the events for which
the employee is charge-sheeted. From the perusal of the charge-sheet
(Annexure P-2), it is evident that the alleged act of misconduct is said to be
between 15.5.2002 to 3.12.2002. The petitioner retired voluntarily vide
order dated 29.4.2004. The impugned charge-sheet has been issued on
7.1.2008.
It is contended by Mr. Vikas Chatrath, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents that the retirement itself contains a rider to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and thus, the period of four
years contemplated under the aforesaid Rule will not come into operation
because of the stipulation contained in the retirement order. This argument
is totally misconceived. From the reading of the rule, it is absolutely clear
that the period of limitation of four years has to commence preceding four
years from the date of initiation of departmental proceedings. Sub-rule (3)
(b) of Rule 2.2 defines the date of initiation of departmental proceedings as
the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Officer or the
pensioner, or if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier
date, on such date. Sub rule (3) (b) of Rule 2.2 reads as under:-
“2.2……
(3)……
(b) a judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be
CWP NO.11836 of 2008 3instituted:-
(i)in the case of criminal proceedings, 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.
Note:- As soon as proceedings of the nature referred to in
the above rule are instituted, the authority which
institutes such proceedings should without delay
intimate the fact to the Accountant General. The amount
of the pension withheld under Clause (b) should not
ordinarily exceed one-third of pension originally
sanctioned including any amount of pension to be so
withheld, regard should be had to the consideration
whether the amount of the pension left to the pensioner
in any case would be adequate for his maintenance.”
In the present case, the statement of charge was issued on 7.1.2008
and thus the limitation for the purpose of computation of four years has to
commence from the date. There is no exception under the rule and thus, the
argument is not sustainable. The charge-sheet having been issued beyond
the period prescribed under the statutory rule is liable to be quashed. Mr.
Chatrath, however, vehemently argues that the respondents may be
permitted to initiate civil proceedings for the recovery of the loss
caused to the department. Needless to say, if law permits the respondents
CWP NO.11836 of 2008 4
to make recovery by initiating civil proceedings, the present order shall not
be impediment for this purpose.
In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The charge-sheet dated
7.1.2008 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent no.2 and the order dated
17.6.2008 (Annexure P-6) are hereby quashed.
(PERMOD KOHLI)
JUDGE
16.2.2009
MFK