Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... vs Jagdev Singh on 20 March, 2013
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 4812 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: March 20, 2013
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
.. Appellants
Vs.
Jagdev Singh
.. Respondent
R.S.A. No. 4937 of 2012 (O&M) Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others .. Appellants Vs. Jagdev Singh .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
A.N. Jindal, J CM No. 13429-C of 2012 Delay in paying the court fee is condoned. CM is allowed.
CM No. 13430-C of 2012 Delay condoned.
CM is allowed.
CM No. 13431-C of 2012 Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. Main appeals This judgment shall dispose of two connected regular second appeal Nos. 4812 and 4937 of 2012, involving similar question of law. However, for convenience, the facts are being taken up from R.S.A. No. 4812 of 2012.
Both the courts below have returned findings of fact that the order dated 21.5.2008 passed by the appellant-defendant Punjab State Electricity Board (herein referred as, 'the Board') imposing penalty of 5% R.S.A. No. 4812 of 2012 (O&M) -2- cut for 10 years in the pension of the plaintiff-respondent was illegal null and void and the plaintiff was entitled to get his pension restored and the Board would not recover the arrears as well by application of cut. As such, this is Board's regular second appeal.
The plaintiff being the employee of the Board was superannuated on 31.12.2005 as Divisional Head Draftsman from the office of Operation Division Maur, District Bathinda after spending a long period of service. However, the Board passed an order dated 21.5.2008 imposing punishment of cut to the extent of 5% for 10 years in the pension of the plaintiff. The order of penalty has been illegally passed without application of mind. The plaintiff has been given charge sheet while his senior (co- employee) XEN, Er. MPS Dhillon was served with show cause notice. Actually, executive engineer was mainly responsible for his act of allowing priority to the connection cases for which he was charge sheeted. The plaintiff was not in any way responsible for sanctioning the Agricultural Tube Well connections. No charge sheet was issued and no enquiry was conducted during the period of his service, therefore, such order, after he had retired, could not be passed.
The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement wherein, besides raising some preliminary objections, it was, inter alia, contended that the order dated 21.5.2008, imposing the penalty is well reasoned and valid. The same was passed after holding proper enquiry against him. The plaintiff was provided opportunity to lead defence and after he was found guilty, the penalty of 5% cut in pension was ordered. The Board was competent to effect recovery as per Rule 2.2 (b) of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II, applicable to the Board's employees even after his retirement.
Replication was filed. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction, as prayed for?OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of R.S.A. No. 4812 of 2012 (O&M) -3- action to file the present suit?OPD
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff has concealed the material facts and has not come to the Court with clean hands?OPD
6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of and mis-
joinder of the necessary parties?OPD
7. Relief.
The trial court decreed the suit and the first appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the Board.
The crucial question to be determined in this case is, "whether the recovery could be effected from the plaintiff from his pension after his retirement on the enquiry, which was never conducted during the period of his service?"
Admittedly, the plaintiff-respondent was in the employment of the appellant-Board. It is also not in dispute that he was superannuated on 31.12.2005. It is also in evidence, as has been shown in Ex.D10, that no sanction has been obtained as required under Rule 2.2 (b)(ii) of the Punishment and Appeal Rules before passing the order of penalty. It is not clear from the record whether the proceedings were initiating against the petitioner within four years from the date the cause of action had accrued to him. It has been observed in the case of Baldhir Singh v. State of Punjab 2008 (4) SCT 652 as under :-
"A bare perusal of the aforementioned Rule makes it clear that Rule 2.2(b)(ii) places a complete embargo on holding of an enquiry against a retired employee for any event which has happened four years prior to the institution of enquiry. In other words, in case a departmental proceeding is to be initiated against an employee after his retirement, it cannot be in respect of an event, which has taken place more than four years prior to the date of the institution of inquiry. The rationale behind the rule appears to be that a retiree should not be subjected to undue hardship in the evening of his life after having rendered satisfactory service to the State. If old R.S.A. No. 4812 of 2012 (O&M) -4- matters which have been settled by afflux of time are permitted to be re-opened after expiry of period of four years then a retiree may not be in a position to defend himself because the evidence in his favour may not be available. The co-employee after retirement might have settled at far flung places and memory may not serve such witnesses and the retiree. The `Sword of Damocles' in the shape of departmental inquiry cannot be kept hanging on the head of the retiree for all times to come and he should be allowed to live in peace after the statutory period of four years of his retirement has come to an end. Moreover, the learned State counsel has not been successfully able to controvert the argument and judgments (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner."
This judgment was followed by this Court in the case of S.S. Arya vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Panchkula and others 2009 (8) SLR 53.
In the light of the aforesaid observations and in the absence of any proof that the enquiry was held within a period of four years from the date of institution of the enquiry, no cut from his pension could be effected.
Thus, the substantial question of law as framed is answered in favour of the respondent.
Dismissed.
March 20, 2013 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge