Disposed

Jit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Aug 2009CWP/11442/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a retired officer, challenged a punishment order and sought quashing of a charge sheet issued shortly before retirement that was delaying retirement benefits. The court dismissed the challenge due to delay regarding the punishment but directed the respondent to decide on the charge sheet within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to quash charge sheet dated 24.12.2008; respondent to take final decision on it within six months. Punishment prayer dismissed.

Jit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No. 11442 of 2009

¶3

DATE OF DECISION : 03.08.2009

¶4

Jit Singh

¶5

.... PETITIONER

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and others

¶8

..... RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

¶10

Present: Mr. Sukhpal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral )

¶13

The petitioner, who was working as Senior Branch Officer, Markfed, at Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur, and has now retired on 31.12.2008, has filed the instant petition, making two fold prayers. Firstly, he prays for quashing of the order of punishment dated 19.9.2000 (Annexure P-6), whereby the punishment of stopping two increments with cumulative effect was imposed and recovery of 50% of the loss was ordered to be recovered from him; the order dated 26.12.2003 (Annexure P-7), whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 13.8.2004 (Annexure P-8) dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Secondly, the petitioner prays for quashing of the charge sheet dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P-13) which was issued just one week before

¶14

CWP No. 11442 of 2009

¶15

-2-

¶16

his retirement.

¶17

Regarding the first prayer, after going through the impugned orders and keeping in view the nature of allegations against the petitioner as well as the fact that the petition has been filed after a delay of 5 years, I am not inclined to entertain this petition. With regard to the second prayer, learned counsel for the petitioner states that to the charge sheet dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P-13), the petitioner has already filed reply and the matter is pending and due to the pendency of the said charge sheet, the retiral benefits of the petitioner have not been released. Therefore, he states that the petitioner will be satisfied, if at this stage, respondent No.1 is directed to take a final decision on the said charge sheet, expeditiously.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner is genuine and reasonable. Therefore, without issuing notice of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to take a final decision on the charge sheet dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure P-13) in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.

¶19

August 03, 2009 ndj

¶20

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE

Jit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jit Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rekha Aggarwal Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Harsimran Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Renu Gupta Vs V.C. Panjab University and Anr.

Rakesh Kumar Bhatia Vs National Ins.Co.Ltd.& Ors.

Jagdish Parshad Vs Dhbvnl and Ors.

Charanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.