Remanded

Hardip Singh v. State of Pb. & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Aug 2011CWP/12421/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the punishing authority to entertain a review application under Rule 21 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, as the petitioner faced no effective remedy after punishment orders became final. The authority must decide merits if innocence is pleaded and direct recovery via instalments.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Punishing Authority to entertain a Review Application under Rule 21 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, within one month, deciding on merits if innocence is

Hardip Singh Vs State of Pb. & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Hardip Singh versus

¶3

State of Punjab and others

¶4

Civl Writ Petition No.12421 of 2005 Date of Decision : August 10, 2011. ..... Petitioner

¶5

..... Respondents

¶6

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶7

Present : Mr.Vipin Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab.

¶8

-.-

¶9

1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

(Oral) Surya Kant, J.

¶13

The petitioner (since deceased and represented through his legal heirs) seeks quashing of the order dated 16.5.2005 (Annexure P-11/T) appointing the Enquiry Officer to hold a regular enquiry in two chargesheets dated 22.7.1997 and 24.1.2000, issued to the deceased-petitioner before he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, w.e.f. 31.12.2000.

¶14

The challenge to the appointment of the Eqnuiry Officer, in a way, has been rendered infructuous as during the pendency of this writ petition, the enquiry was completed and the deceased-petitioner having been found guilty, two punishment orders dated 2.1.2007 (Annexure P-18 and P-19) were passed imposing recovery of Rs.2,11,461/- in the first charge-sheet and of Rs.1,39,400/- in the second charge-sheet against the

¶15

[2]

¶16

CWP No.12421 of 2005

¶17

deceased-petitioner.

¶18

It may be mentioned here that in the first charge-sheet dated 22.7.1997 (Annexure P-1), the allegations were that the deceased-petitioner while working as Deputy Treasury Officer, Tarn-Taran failed to comply with Chapter 11 of the Punjab Stamp Manual and Stamp Indent Rules, thereby causing permanent loss of Rs.2,11,461/- and temporary loss of Rs.9,28,268/-, In the second charge-sheet dated 24.1.2000 (Annexure P-3), the deceased-petitioner was accused of having made illegal payment of House Rent Allowance to the employees of the Government High School, Godiwind in the Border area, besides dis-obeying Rule 192 of the Punjab Treasury Rules and that he ignored their admissibility while passing the bills of arrears of HRA submitted by the employees working under him.

¶19

The writ petitioner unfortunately passed away on 20.12.2009 during the pendency of these proceedings and is represented through his wife and children.

¶20

Since the impugned punishment orders have been passed by the State Government, it appears that the petitioners are left with no effective appellate forum under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. Rule 21 nevertheless empowers the Punishing or the Appellate Authority to review/modify/recall the orders passed by it and/or the subordinate Authority. Since the Rule Making Authority otherwise intended to provide the remedy of appeal against an order of punishment and the petitioners, in the given facts and circumstances, are deprived thereof, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a

¶21

CWP No.12421 of 2005 [3]

¶22

direction to the Punishing Authority to entertain their Review Application under Rule 21 of the Act to be submitted within a period of one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order and decide the same with as much as expanded powers as may be exercised by an Appellate Authority. To be more specific, if the review applicants take a plea of innocence of the deceased-employee, the same shall also be gone into on merits. It may be mentioned here that in respect of the quantum of punishment imposed vide impugned order dated 24.1.2000, it is the case of the petitioners that the High Court has already allowed and upheld the claim of House Rent Allowance of the employees of the Border Area and as such the deceased-employee had committed no illegality in releasing the same. The Reviewing Authority shall be required to go into this issue specifically. It would be desirable to hear the petitioners in person in representative capacity before passing the speaking order, within a period of four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶23

It is further directed that in case any of the punishment orders sustains in part or otherwise, the recovery, if any, to be effected from the petitioners shall be through easy monthly instalments only.

¶24

Ordered accordingly.

¶25

Dasti.

Hardip Singh v. State of Pb. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardip Singh v. State of Pb. & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmail Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Raj Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurbinder Singh Vs A.R. Talwar and Ors.

Aarti and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Punj Brothers Ltd. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.