Disposed

Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Jul 2016CWP/12219/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the prolonged pendency of a major penalty inquiry and the consequent withholding of retirement benefits. The single judge directed authorities to conclude the proceedings within six months or lapse the entire process.

What did the court decide?

Directing authorities to decide pending proceedings within six months; otherwise, charge sheet to lapse.

Sucha Singh Vs State of Punjab and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

114

CWP 12219/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

Date of decision:04/07/2016.

¶6

Sucha Singh

¶7

............Petitioner

¶8

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

.............Respondent

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶12

Present:Mr.GPS Bal,Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Jaswant Singh,J(Oral)

¶14

Petitioner-Sucha Singh retired as Junior Assistant on 31.10.2008 from the State Transport Department,Punjab. The petitioner alongwith his colleagues Balwinder Singh,Sr.Clerk; Randhir Singh and Gurmit Singh, who were working as Junior Assistants were issued a charge sheet on 10.10.2007 for imposition of major penalty under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal Rules)1970. The common charges are that (i) they had mischievously replaced and altered service books of some of the employees so as to give them benefit of increments by suppressing recorded punishments and (ii) as a consequence various amounts as arrears of increments to such employees were paid and thus causing loss to State exchequer.

¶15

It is averred that the first Inquiry Officer was appointed on 11.12.2008 and after conduct of certain proceedings, a second Inquiry RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2016.07.05 10:43 Officer was appointed on 18.3.2009 and thereafter a third one has been I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CWP 12219/2016 2 114

¶17

appointed on 28.4.2015. It is claimed that all the aforesaid delinquent officials including petitioner have appeared before the three Inquiry Officers and yet no substantial progress has ever been made by any of the Inquiry Officers. It is also submitted that FIR No.60 dated 6.12.2005 6.12.2005 based on the same allegations was also lodged by the Vigilance Bureau for offences under Sections 461,467,471,120-B IPC and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act in which all the officials including petitioner stand discharged by learned Additional Sessions Judge,SBS Nagar vide order dated 16.7.2014 for non-grant of sanction to prosecute by the Department. It is averred that co-employees i.e. Randhir Singh stands retired on 31.5.2009,while Gurmit Singh stood retired in the year 2010 and their retiral benefits have been withheld due to pendency of the present inquiry for major penalty.

¶18

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed seeking a mandamus to the official respondents to conclude the inquiry pending since more than 8½ years as retiral benefits of the petitioner have been withheld due to the pendency of the said inquiry. It is further contended that there is a report at P-2 which reveals that factually no excess amount was released to any of the employees and thus no loss has been caused to the State exchequer apart from the fact that the matter has been pending since long.

¶19

On the directions of the Court, Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Additional Advocate General,Punjab accepts notice. Copy of writ petition supplied to him.

¶20

Keeping in view the the fact that inquiry has been kept pending for more than 8½ years and the evidence in the same is based primarily on RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2016.07.05 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CWP 12219/2016 3 114

¶22

documents, it is deemed appropriate in the interest of justice to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the authorities concerned to decide the pending disciplinary proceedings within six months from today failing which the entire proceedings including charge sheet would stand lapsed.

¶23

Disposed of in the above terms.

¶24

04.07.2016 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge

¶25

RAJINDER PRASHAD JOSHI 2016.07.05 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sucha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amandeep Kumar Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Vinod Kumar & Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Jahid Vs State of Haryana

Jasbir Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sandeep Singh Dhillon Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.