Allowed

Mewa Singh and Anr. v. Pb. & Hry. High Court and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 May 2011CWP/14273/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed charge-sheets issued to retired civil servants under Rule 2.2(b)(2)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. The court held that initiating proceedings for incidents occurring beyond a four-year window from the charge-sheet date violates the statutory limitation, regardless of the seriousness of the allegations.

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheets issued to petitioners in three writ petitions were quashed as they pertained to incidents outside the statutory four-year limitation period.

Mewa Singh and Anr. Vs Pb. & Hry… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

- 1-

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 14273 of 2010

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Writ Petition No. 14273 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 2.5.2011

¶5

Mewa Singh & another

¶6

.......... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh & others

¶9

...... Respondents

¶10

¶11

Civil Writ Petition No. 17896 of 2010 (O&M)

¶12

Gurbax Singh Patial

¶13

.......... Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh & others

¶16

...... Respondents

¶17

*** Civil Writ Petition No. 12813 of 2010 (O&M)**

¶18

J.P. Bhatia

¶19

.......... Petitioner

¶20

Versus

¶21

Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh & others

¶22

...... Respondents

¶23

¶24

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶25

Present : Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP No. 14273 of 2010)

¶26

Mr. S.B. Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioners (in CWP No. 12813 & 17896 of 2010)

¶27

Mr. Anmol Rattan Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

¶28

¶29

Civil Writ Petition No. 14273 of 2010

¶30

- 2-

¶31

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

¶32

Vide this order I propose to decide three writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos. 14273,17896 & 12813 of 2010 titled as 'Mewa Singh & another versus Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh & others', 'Gurbax Singh Patial versus Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh & others' and 'J.P. Bhatia versus Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh & others', respectively, as common question of law and facts are involved in these cases.

¶33

In these writ petitions prayer has been made for quashing the charge-sheets issued to the petitioners, on the ground that the same could not have been issued to the petitioners in the light of the Rule 2.2(b)(2)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II, Part I, wherein it is provided that the departmental proceedings shall not be instituted with respect to any event which took place more than four years before such institution, if not instituted while the officer was in service before his retirement or during his re-employment.

¶34

For convenience sake facts are being taken from CWP No. 14273 of 2010 titled as 'Mewa Singh & another versus Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh & others'.

¶35

Mewa Singh, petitioner No.1 sought and was granted voluntary retirement on 18.4.1995 and Ram Avtar-petitioner No.2 was pre-maturely retired in December, 2007. Charge-sheet was issued to Mewa Singh on 25.12.2009 (Annexure P-1) and to Ram Avtar on 4.2.2009 (Annexure P-2). These pertain to incidents much prior to four years from the date of initiation of the enquiry proceedings i.e. issuance of the charge-sheet. This fact could not be

¶36

Civil Writ Petition No. 14273 of 2010

¶37

- 3-

¶38

disputed by the counsel for the respondents. However, he has tried to justify the initiation of the enquiry proceedings against the petitioners, primarily, on the ground that it is a very serious lapse which has occurred, wherein the responsibility of the petitioners, as per the preliminary enquiry held by the Joint Registrar (C), wherein it appears that the petitioners could be involved if not in the missing of the weapons but negligent in handing the same. He contends that enquiry proceedings, therefore, need to be permitted to continue to find out the truth and the erring employee, if any, should be punished. However, statutory Rules governing the service have not been disputed by the respondents.

¶39

As is apparent from the records, the incident for which the charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioners are ranging from 1968 to 1994 and pertain to weapons which are stated to be missing were the case property in various appeals. Even if these incidents are stretched to any limit but they cannot be brought within the statutory period mandated within which the departmental proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioners. There is no explanation forthcoming with regard to the period spent till the date of issuance of the charge-sheet in the year 2009. A point has been raised that criminal proceedings have been initiated but it would not be out of way to mention here that the criminal proceedings initiated against Ram Avtar-petitioner No.2, in this writ petition on registration of FIR No. 26 dated 23.2.2000 have resulted in acquittal of the petitioner of the charges vide judgment dated 27.10.2009, pronounced by the then JMIC, Chandigarh. Counsel for the

¶40

Civil Writ Petition No. 14273 of 2010

¶41

- 4-

¶42

respondents states that this relates to only one weapon but that does not make any difference.

¶43

Keeping in view the totality of the facts of the case, the mandate of the statute cannot be twisted in favour of the respondents merely because there are serious allegations and the apprehension has been expressed by the respondents that the petitioners may be involved in the act or at least negligent in performing their duties. The statutory limitation has to be honoured and any act of an authority has to be tested on the anvil of those statutory provisions. It could not be disputed that as per Rule 2.2(b) Clause 2(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.-II, Part-I, departmental proceedings, if not initiated while a person was in service or during his re-employment, shall not be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution. That being the clear and specific language of the statute no interpretation could be put which would require clarification on the aspect of the statutory protection which has been granted to an employee which purpose is quite reasonable and justified. The bar of the statute on the basis of an explanation to extend the limitation, as prescribed under the statutory rules can be waived, has also not been found to be reasonable in this case .

¶44

In view of the above, as the charge-sheet has been issued for incident(s) beyond the period of four years prior to the issuance of the charge-sheet and were beyond the period of four years of the retirement of the petitioners in all these three writ petitions except Ram Avtar petitioner No.2 in CWP No. 14273 of

¶45

- 5-

¶46

Civil Writ Petition No. 14273 of 2010

¶47

2010, cannot be a basis for initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioners.

¶48

Accordingly, the present writ petitions are allowed. Charge-sheet issued to Mewa Singh on 25.12.2009 (Annexure P-1) and to Ram Avtar on 4.2.2009 (Annexure P-2) in CWP No. 14273 of 2010, charge sheet issued to Gurbax Singh Patial on 25.12.2009 (Annexure P-1) in CWP No. 17896 of 2010 and charge-sheet issued to J.P. Bhatia on 25.12.2009 (Annexure P-3) in CWP No. 12813 of 2010 are hereby quashed. It may be clarified here that as per Rule itself judicial proceedings, if any, can be initiated and if they are already going on, can continue as per the mandate of the Rule and obviously it would have its own course.

¶49

2.5.2011 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 'sp' JUDGE

Mewa Singh and Anr. v. Pb. & Hry. High Court and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mewa Singh and Anr. v. Pb. & Hry. High Court and 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

Kulwinder Singh Vs Kpb Staqte Electricity Board and Ors.

Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jagdish Kumar Sehgal Vs the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. & Anr.

Satvir Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Kishan Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mohinder Paul Chopra Vs State of Punjab & Ors.