Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Electricity Board vs Atma Singh Grewal And Others on 20 August, 2009
Author: J.S. Khehar
Bench: J.S. Khehar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
L.P.A. No. 752 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: August 20, 2009
Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala.
... Appellant
Versus
Atma Singh Grewal and others.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S. KHEHAR,
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND.
Present : Mr. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate,
for the appellant.
J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral)
Through the instant Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant i.e. the Punjab State Electricity Board, has approached this Court so as to impugn the determination rendered by this Court while disposing of Civil Writ Petition No. 11836 of 2008 vide an order dated 16.02.2009. The respondent herein - Atma Singh Grewal had assailed the action of the respondents in issuing a charge-sheet to him dated 07.01.2008 by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 11836 of 2008, asserting that the same was in violation of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II. Rule 2.2 (b) aforesaid is being extracted hereunder:-
"(b) The Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering L.P.A. No. 752 of 2009 2 the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if, in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement.
Provided that -
(1) Such departmental proceedings, if instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the officer, he deemed to be a proceeding under this article and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service;
(2) Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment:-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government;
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution;
and
(iii) 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.
(3) No such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution. The Public Service Commission should be consulted before final orders are passed."
It is not a matter of dispute, that the alleged misconduct, on the basis of which the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 07.01.2008 was issued, was actually committed between 15.05.2002 to 03.12.2002 i.e. well before four years of L.P.A. No. 752 of 2009 3 the issuance of the charge-sheet dated 07.01.2008. The learned Single Judge while allowing Civil Writ Petition No. 11836 of 2008 held, that the aforesaid charge-sheet having been issued after a period of four years of the commission of the alleged delinquency, was liable to be set aside, as the same was in violation of mandate of rule 2.2 (b) (extracted hereinabove).
The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, that rule 2.2. (b) should be interpreted to read that the bar for issuing a charge sheet to an officer who is in receipt of pensionary benefits, should commence with effect from the date of the detection of the delinquency, and not with reference to the date of occurrence of the delinquency itself.
We have considered the first submission advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. The language of clause (ii) of the second proviso under Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, is express and categoric, inasmuch as, the same bars the initiation of the departmental proceedings, after a period of four years from the date the "event" in respect whereof the proceedings are being initiated, took place. There is no possibility of interpreting the rule in the manner suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant. In fact, the suggestion of the learned counsel for the appellant to interpret the rule, so as to exclude the initiation of the departmental enquires, only after a period of four years of the "detection" of the delinquency in our view, is clear absurd. The instant submission seems to be coined up only as a matter of a face saving device, rather than as a matter of interpretation or deriveable inference.
The second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is based on the order by which the respondent - Atma Ram L.P.A. No. 752 of 2009 4 Grewal was allowed to retire. Relevant extract of the aforesaid order is being reproduced hereunder:
"Sh. Atma Singh Grewal, Sr. XEN / MPV Divn. Kotkapura gave notice on 27.2.2004 for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.4.2004. In view of his family circumstances, his case for voluntary retirement was considered by the competent authority and he has been allowed to retire voluntarily from the service on 30.04.2004. And after the curtailment of notice period as per instructions contained in office order No. 451 dated 20.07.1982. The commutation and other pensionary benefits shall be allowed as per instructions of the Board. The retirement of the officer will be without prejudice to the outcome of disciplinary cases, which may crop us at a later stage. The retirement will not effect the disciplinary proceedings / recovery of outstanding amount, if any."
It is emphasized by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the aforesaid order allowing the respondent to retire, clearly mentioned that, liberty given to the respondent to retire would not affect any disciplinary proceedings. This condition incorporated in the order of retirement, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, vests the right in the appellant to hold a departmental enquiry against the respondent at any stage whatsoever.
We have considered the second submission advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. We, however, find no merit therein. Obviously, an administrative order cannot supersede the safeguard contained in a statutory rule. Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II extracted hereinabove, is applicable to all employees who are drawing pensionary benefits. Clause (ii) under proviso 2 of rule 2.2 extracted hereinabove, debars the holding of any departmental enquiry against a person drawing pension, in respect of an occurrence which took place more than four years prior to the date of the initiation of such enquiry. It is not disputed, that the occurrence on which the charge sheet dated L.P.A. No. 752 of 2009 5 07.01.2008 took place in the year 2002, whereas the charge sheet was issued to the respondent more than six years after the occurrence. We, therefore, find no merit even in the second contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.
No other submission, besides those noticed hereinabove, was advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant.
This is yet another instance of a frivolous appeal filed at the hands of a statutory body. There was absolutely no merit and no cause to file the instant appeal. Despite the same, the Punjab State Electricity Board, chose to prefer the instant appeal without application of mind. In this case, the Punjab State Electricity Board has not only incurred unnecessary expenses, but also wasted precious Court time.
In view of the above, we are of the view, that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed with costs. The instant appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. The aforesaid costs shall not be borne by the Electricity Board, but shall be recovered from the officer who authorized the filing of the instant appeal. The aforesaid costs shall, in the first instance, be deposited by the appellant with the Legal Services Authority, Punjab, within one month from today. The recovery thereof shall be made from the concerned officer within a further period of two months.
In case, the aforestated recovery is made from an officer who feels that the actual responsibility for filing the instant appeal rested on the shoulders of some other officer, it would be open to such officer to approach this Court by moving a civil miscellaneous application (in the L.P.A. No. 752 of 2009 6 instant Letters Patent Appeal) so as to require this Court to determine the accountability of the officer concerned.
The instant appeal is dismissed in the aforesaid terms. In view of the fact that the main appeal has been dismissed on merits, we find no justification for passing a separate order on the application for condoning the delay (in filing the instant appeal).
( J.S. Khehar )
Judge
August 20, 2009 ( S.D. Anand )
vkd Judge