Allowed

Bhupinder Kumar v. Pswc

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Apr 2011CWP/16293/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the validity of a departmental charge-sheet issued after his retirement. The charge alleged misconduct from years prior, violating the mandatory four-year bar under applicable service rules. Upholding a Division Bench view, the court held the four-year embargo is absolute for retired employees and quashed the charge-sheet.

What did the court decide?

Impugned charge-sheet dated 01.09.2010 was quashed.

Bhupinder Kumar Vs Pswc — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No. 16293 of 2010 . [O&M]

¶3

Date of Decision: 4^th April, 2011 .

¶4

Bhupender Kumar Petitioner through Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate

¶5

Versus

¶6

Punjab State Warehousing Corporation

¶7

Respondent through Mr. S.C.Pathela, Advocate.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶10

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

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

¶12

SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]

¶13

This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 16293, 16654 and 17435 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 16293 of 2010.

¶14

The petitioner retired from the post of Deputy General Manager [Accounts] from the respondent Corporation w.e.f. 31.10.2003. He is aggrieved by the charge-sheet dated 01.09.2010 which has been issued after the expiry of the maximum period of four years prescribed under the Punjab Civil Service [Punishment and Appeal] Rules, 1970 as applicable to the respondent Corporation. Suffice it to mention that Rule 2.2[b][2] of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, Part I, reads as follows:-

¶15

“ 2.2[b][2] Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment:-

¶16

[i] shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government;

¶17

[ii] shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and

¶18

shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer during his service”.

¶19

In the instant case, the impugned charge-sheet dated 01.09.2010 pertains to the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner during the year 2000-01 and 2001-02. It has been admittedly issued much after expiry of four years period after the alleged misconduct and contrary to the Rule 2.2[b][2] ibid.

¶20

This fact is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents also.

¶21

A Division Bench of this Court in somewhat similar situation in Raghubir Singh v Punjab State Warehousing Corporation & Anr., CWP No. 10456 of 2007 decided on 11.09.2008 held as follows:-

¶22

“ A perusal of the aforementioned Rule makes it clear that a complete embargo has been imposed prohibiting holding of an inquiry against a retired employee for any event which has happened four years prior to the initiation of an inquiry. Therefore, a departmental proceeding can not be initiated against an employee in respect of an event that has taken place more than four years prior to the date of institution of such an inquiry. The matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Baldhir Singh v State of Punjab & Ors. [CWP No. 17458 of 2007] decided on 18.07.2008 of which one of us [M.M.Kumar, J] is a member. We have also noticed that the judgment in L.B.Gupta's case [supra] and in the case

¶23

of M.P.Goswami vs State of Punjab [CWP No. 17382 of 2005 decided on 7.8.2007] also fully apply to the facts of the present case”.

¶24

Following the afore-quoted view which has also been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned charge-sheet is hereby quashed.

¶25

Disposed of. Dasti .

¶26

April 04, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE

Bhupinder Kumar v. Pswc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupinder Kumar v. Pswc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldip Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bhai Harjit Singh Vs S.G.P.C. and Ors.

Major Singh Vs Pspc Ltd. and Anr.

Navjot Kaur Vs Bbk Dav College for Women and Others

Gunwant Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sukhdev Singh Vs F.C. Co-Op. Punjab & or.S