Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrik Singh vs Punjab And Haryana High Court on 23 July, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1994)IILLJ196P&H
ORDER G.R. Majithia, J.
1. This judgment disposes of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 5629, 5630 and 5631 of 1984. In these petitions, a challenge has been made to the orders of dismissal passed against the petitioner on three counts by the Chief Justice of this Court.
2. A reference to the relevant facts is necessary to adjudicate the question of law raised in these petitions. The petitioner joined service as a Clerk on the establishment of the Lahore High Court (predecessor of this Court) in November, 1943. He was promoted as an Office Superintendent of this Court in May, 1971 and was granted the Selection Grade in the year 1976. He attained the age of 58 years in August, 1980. The age of superannuation of the members of the establishment of this Court at the relevant time was 60 years. The petitioner was placed under suspension on December 17, 1981, as an action was under contemplation against him under Rule 35 of the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973, and he was retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years while under suspension with effect from August 31, 1982. Charge Memo No. 12835-E.1/V.B., dated June 7, 1982, along with the articles of charge appended thereto, the subject of challenge in C.W.P. No. 5631 of 1984, was served upon the petitioner.
3. The articles of charge read as under: You, Shri Amrik Singh, Superintendent Grade-I of this Court, are guilty of the following charges-
1. That you while posted as Superintendent in Cash and Bills Branch were entrusted with the duties of Cashier and supervision/checking of all other cash books and other records maintained in that section by the other officials posted under your control. It was your duty to receive moneys from all the branches of this Court for deposits and the amounts of V.P.Ps, from the official of the Post Office and to verify that the entries of these amounts had been made in the Cash Book. It was also your duty, before leaving office, daily to check cash books of Personal Ledger Accounts of the Registrar and the Election Account and to affix your signatures in token of their correctness and to verify the correctness of receipt and payment and remittances into Treasury Banks, Shri Harpal Singh, Senior Assistant, under suspension, working at the relevant time under your control and supervision, had been entrusted by you to maintain the Personal Ledger Account of the Registrar and also the Election Account besides V.P.P. Account of this Court. Shri Harpal Singh had been receiving the payments of the various amounts on different dates between April 1, 1979 to December, 1981 either in cash or through cheques from Shri Dushyant Singh, Senior Assistant (now under suspension) as Accountant of this Court or from the banks against the bills so prepared for the purpose on the requisitions received from the concerned branches and entered them rightly on the receipt side of the Personal Ledger Account but instead of making payments or remittances into the Treasury or depositing in the banks in accordance with the rules and procedure, embezzled the same on occasions and made false entries on the payment side showing the payments/deposits as having actually been made/effected in accordance with the procedure and rules. Similarly, in the Election Account also, Shri Harpal Singh for the period from April, 1979 to December, 1981 either made no entry in the Cash Books of the Election Account or made false entries showing the amounts paid up or deposited in the bank. In the entire period from April 1, 1979 to December, 1981, you had never checked the cash books of both these accounts, i.e. Personal Ledger Account of the Registrar and the Election Account and left office without appending your signatures in token of the correctness of all the transactions daily which you were required to do in your capacity as Superintendent, Cash and Bills and as Cashier.
Thus you are guilty of having facilitated the embezzlement being committed by Shri Harpal Singh from the Personal Ledger Account to the tune of Rs. 29,788-73 and of Rs. 3291/-from the Election Account as detailed in the statement of allegations in connivance with Sh. Dushyant Singh, Shri Devinder Mohan Parti, Assistants and Shri Ved Singh Daftri either deliberately or by gross dereliction of your duties and functions.
2. That you failed to check Shri Harpal Singh, Senior Assistant, who had been misappropriating money or embezzling it temporarily as shown in Annexures 'A' to 'D' enclosed with the statement of allegations by making false entries in the cash books i.e. showing their remittance into Treasury whereas he actually deposited the amounts after having retained the same for long period in disregard of the rules and instructions on the subject i.e. depositing the money in the bank within 24 hours of its receipt or the latest by the next working day. Shri Harpal Singh also tampered with stamps of the State Bank of India on the treasury challans bearing scroll Nos. 10, 3, 5, 12, 7, 9, 10, 5, 8, 9, 27, 43, 8, 4 and 6. Shri Harpal Singh also in order to wriggle out of the situation tampered with the cash book entry of December 18, 1980 and the cash book for the period from January 24, 1981 to June 4, 1981 and you failed to detect and kept mum over the matter.
Thus the said lapses including the embezzlement of Rs. 29, 788.73 and Rs. 3291/- from the Personal Ledger Account of this Court and the Election Account respectively has been committed by Shri Harpal Singh in connivance with Sarvshri Dushyant Singh, Devinder Mohan Parti, Assistants and Ved Singh, Daftri had been facilitated by your negligence and utter lack of supervision and control in the performance of your duties as Cashier and Superintendent, Cash and Bills. The nature and extent of irregularities, reflecting total absence of responsibility, the manner and the circumstances in which embezzlements took place clearly show that you were also in connivance with said Shri Harpal Singh and others to the embezzlement."
Shri S.D. Tyagi, District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Haryana, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated May 5, 1983, held that the charges framed against the petitioner stood proved. On receipt of the enquiry report, the Chief Justice, who was the disciplinary authority, agreeing with the Enquiry Officer, tentatively formed the view that major punishment of dismissal from service should be imposed upon the petitioner. A show cause notice stating the penalty proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner was served upon him on May 14, 1983. Before the expiry of the time mentioned in the aforesaid show cause, the petitioner submitted an application for supply of certified copies of documents mentioned in the application. The request was declined by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority, after examining the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in detail, passed orders on June 7, 1983 that the petitioner be dismissed from service. The order of dismissal reads thus:-
"Shri S.D. Tyagi, District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Haryana, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry against Sh. Amrik Singh, Superintendent, Cash and Bills Branch of this Court, in respect of the charges detailed in the Articles of Charge dated June 7, 1982. The said Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated May 5, 1983, wherein he came to the conclusion that the charges framed against Sh. Amrik Singh are substantiated. Finding myself in complete agreement with the said report I tentatively formed the view that major punishment of dismissal from service should be imposed upon him. A copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer along with the findings on the articles of charge were supplied to him and a show-cause notice stating the penalty proposed to be imposed upon him was served upon him on May 14, 1983. He was also directed to submit his representation within 15 days of the receipt of the notice which he wished to make against the proposed penalty on the basis of the evidence adduced during the course of the inquiry held against him.
Before the expiry of 15 days, Sh. Amrik Singh submitted an application dated May 27, 1983, wherein he requested for the supply of the certified copies of the documents mentioned in the application. At the same time he also prayed for grant of two weeks' time so as to enable him to submit his reply to the show-cause notice. This prayer was declined by me as per my order dated June 1, 1983, and the same was communicated to him. However, he refused to accept the said communication.
It appears to me that Sh. Amrik Singh has no justification to offer against the proposed punishment and it is for this reason that he has not chosen to file any representation within the period granted to him.
I have minutely examined the evidence produced during the enquiry and the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, Statements of Shri Ajit Singh E.W.I, who proved the photostat copy of the duty list bearing the signatures of Sh. Amrik Singh (Ex. E.W. 1/1), Shri D.R. Trikha, D.W. 3, who proved the recorded statements of Sh. Amrik Singh dated February 27, 1982 (Ex. E.W.3/1) and dated March 2, 1982(Ex. E. W.3/2) and of Sh. Harpal Singh dated February 27, 1982 (Ex. E.W.3/3) and dated March 1, 1983 (EX. E.W. 3.4) and Sh. Mohan Dutt Sharma, E.W.2, who proved his report (Ex.E.W.2/1) dated February 27, 1982, highlight the pre-concert and total complicity of Shri Amrik Singh with Sh. Harpal Singh in embezzlement of Government money.
Sh. Harpal Singh in his statement E.W.3/3 has admitted that he had embezzled an amount of Rs. 29,788.73/-. in the Personal Ledger Account and Rs. 3291/- in the Election Account. He has also admitted that some pages of the Cash Book for the period from March 30, 1980 to January 23, 1981 and from January 24, 1981 to June 4, 1981 were changed with the direction of Sh. Amrik Singh, Superintendent He has stated that Cash Book was never checked by Sh. Amrik Singh, Superintendent, nor he asked for the Cash Books for the purpose of checking. In his supplementary statement E.W.3/4, he has stated that the embezzled amount in the Personal Ledger Account was shared by Shri Amrik Singh, Superintendent besides others. Sh. Amrik Singh has also admitted in his first statement EW.3/1 that he never checked the P.L. Account and the Election Account and that he never verified the entries of the Cash Book and remittances into the Treasury.
The detailed Audit Report Ex.EW.2/1 of Shri Mohan Dutt Sharma further reveals that Sh. Amrik Singh never authenticated the entries made in the Cash Book pertaining to the period April 1, 1979 to December, 1980. He has also allowed Sh. Harpal Singh to embezzle the Government money as detailed in Annexures 'C', 'D' and 'F' of the Audit Report Ex.EW.2/1. Furthermore, he allowed Sh. Harpal Singh to tamper with the stamps of the State Bank of India on 15 treasury challans, marked Exts. EW.2/2 to E.W.2/16.
It is also brought on record that pages 18 to 100 which were not a part of the original Cash Book of the year 1980, have been tampered with and changed and for that reason the closing balance on page 99 was different inasmuch as on the original page 99 of the Cash Book the closing balance was Rs. 27,279.85P. while on the substituted page 99 the balance was shown as Rs. 6551.35P. Similarly, the entries of the Cash Book for the period January 24, 1981 to June 4, 1981 did not tally with the entries so made in the Ledger of the Account and that there was no page bearing No. 79 in the Cash Book and rather pages from page 79 to 100 were substituted.
The statement of Sh. Ajit Singh EW.1 shows that Sh. Amrik Singh was posted as Treasurer on August 23, 1962 and became Superintendent Cash and Bills on May 3, 1974. Shri Amrik Singh was sufficiently experienced as to the working of the Cash Section and was holding a responsible post of Superintendent aad was shouldering the onerous duties of the office. He acted hand in glove with Sh. Har-pal Singh and resorted to frauds on a large scale as discussed above. He was a privy to the falsification of the records and allowed to, fall the things in total neglect which only leads to an irresistible conclusion that he was the kingpin of the design evolved to commit the fraud of the government money. Therefore, the charges levelled against him are fully substantiated on record.
Shri Amrik Singh had sought to assail the inquiry proceedings by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 2410 of 1983 wherein inter-alia he had prayed for the stay of further proceedings. The Division Bench, however, was pleased to expressly decline the stay on May 13, 1983.
Taking into account the totality of the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the view that no case has been made out for imposing any other punishment lesser than the one already proposed to be imposed upon Sh. Amrik Singh. I, therefore,order that he be dismissed from service with immediate effect. Office order be issued accordingly."
4. The petitioner challenged the order of the disciplinary authority in a departmental appeal. The same was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated August 24, 1984. The orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have been challenged by the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 5631 of 1984.
5. Second charge memo contained in No. 6508-E.I./V.B., dated March 18, 1982 was served upon the petitioner. The articles of charge read thus:-
"You, Shri Amrik Singh, Superintendent Grade-I (Under Suspension), Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh are charged as under:-
(i) That you while posted as Superintendent in Cash and Bills Branch were entrusted with the duties of Cashier and in that capacity it was your duty to correctly make the entries in the stock register and Non-Gazetted Misc. Cash Book and to check and verify the correctness of the entries if made by some other official under your control and supervision. It was also your duty to check and ensure that the amount drawn from the Bank/Treasury was actually spent for the purpose it was drawn. Shri Harpal Singh, Senior Assistant now under suspension working in the cash section under your control and supervision had been making entries in the Misc. Non Gazetted Cash Book and Stock Register showing receipt and expenditure on account of withdrawals, the purchase of service stamps, their stock and disbursement to the Despatch Branch under your supervision.
During the current financial year 1981-82 from April 1, 1981 to November 29,1981 a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- was withdrawn by you from the contingent grant for the purchase of the service stamps in accordance with the procedure laid down for the purpose on seven different occasions and entries were made in respect of each such withdrawal under receipt head of the cash book by abovesaid Harpal Singh as detailed in statement of allegations. On three dates i.e. May 5, 1981, July 17,1981 and November 6, 1981 you entrusted Shri Harpal Singh with a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each for the purchase of service stamps from the post office and arranged blank letters of authority in his favour addressed to the Post Master General, General Post Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh and his signatures thereon were also attested by you for the purpose. Shri Harpal Singh, however, did not purchase service stamps of any value on May 5, 1981 and July 17, 1981 and purchased service stamps worth Rs. 8000/- only on November 6, 1981 against Rs. 20,000/-but made false entries in the said cash book and stock register showing the purchase of service stamps worth Rupees 20,000/- on each of the said three occasions and disbursement thereof to Sharif Masih to cover up the embezzlement of Rs. 52,000/-. Stamps worth Rs. 20,000/- purchased from the post office on May 30, 1980 were also not allocated, as no entry was made with regard thereto in the stock register nor were the signature of any official of Despatch Branch obtained in token of their disbursement.
Thus, the admitted embezzlement of Rs. 52,000/- and suspected embezzlement in respect of service stamps worth Rs. 20,0007-purchased on May 30, 1980 was facilitated by your gross negligence, utter lack of supervision and control in the performance of your duties as Cashier and Superintendent, Cash and Bills. The nature and extent of irregularities reflecting total absence of devotion to duty, the manner and the circumstances in which embezzlement took place clearly point out to your being in connivance with Shri Harpal Singh and a party to the embezzlement.
(ii) That you kept unaccounted service stamps worth Rs. 17,000/- in your custody since after the shifting of High Court from Simla to Chandigarh and instead of bringing them to account, Shri Harpal Singh above said with your connivance utilized these stamps to cover up the embezzlement committed after the introduction of new system of purchase of service stamps in cash from November/December, 1979.
(iii) That you had been lending money to Shri Sharif Masih, Officiating Assistant of this Court, now under suspension, out of the Government cash entrusted to you as Cashier on interest and also did not disburse his pay in the Co-ordination Branch where he was posted as required according to the instructions in force and he used to be paid through Misc. Acquittance Roll after deducting the loan so advanced and interest accrued thereon and because of your dominating position, Sharif Masih could not and was not allowed to discharge his duty properly in the matter of taking delivery of stamps from you or Harpal Singh. Thus you are guilty of misusing and abusing your official position which amounts to misconduct."
Shri S.D. Tyagi, District & Sessions Judge (Vig.), Haryana, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. He in his enquiry report dated May 4, 1983, found that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. On receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority, agreeing with the same, prima facie formed an opinion that the penalty of dismissal from service be imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice along with the copy of the enquiry report and he was asked to furnish his reply within fifteen days of the receipt of the show-cause notice. He did not file any reply to the show-cause notice within the stipulated period and submitted an application praying for supply of certified copies of certain documents. The prayer was declined by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner did not choose to file reply to show-cause notice against the proposed punishment The disciplinary authority, after considering the enquiry report, ordered on June 7, 1983 that the petitioner be dismissed from service with immediate effect. The order dated June 7, 1983 reads thus:-
"Shri S.D. Tyagi, District and Sessions Judge (Vig.), Haryana, was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to conduct an inquiry against Shri Amrik Singh, Superintendent Grade-I of Cash and Bills Branch of this Court in respect of the charges so detailed in Articles of Charge dated March 18, 1982. The said Inquiry Officer has submitted his detailed report dated May 1, 1983, wherein he came to the conclusion that the department had succeeded in establishing the charges framed against Shri Amrik Singh.
Agreeing completely with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, I tentatively formed the view that major punishment of dismissal from service should be imposed upon Shri Amrik Singh. A copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer along with findings on the articles of charges were furnished to Sh. Amrik Singh along with the show-cause notice. He was called upon to submit his representation within fifteen days of the receiptof this notice against the proposed punishment. Before the expiry of the said period, on May 27, 1983, he submitted an application praying that he may be supplied certified copies of the documents detailed in the application and further asked for two weeks more time to submit his reply to the show-cause notice. The prayer so made in the application was declined vide my order dated June 1, 1983. Necessary intimation was sent to him in this regard but he refused to accept the same.
Shri Amrik Singh has not chosen to show cause against the proposed punishment and it can be safely said that he has nothing to say in this regard.
I have minutely and carefully examined the evidence adduced before the Inquiry Officer and the findings recorded by him. From the statements of Shri Mangat Ram Verma E. W. 1, Assistant Post Master, G.P.O. Chandigarh, Shri Sharif Masih E.W.2, Shri Mohan Dutt Sharma E. W.3, Shri Roshan Lal Verma E. W. 4, Shri Ved Singh Daftri E.W.5, Sh. D.R. Trikha E. W. 6 and Shri Tara Chand E.W.7, it is sufficiently brought on record that Sh. Harpal Singh in pre-concert and complicity with Shri Amrik Singh, Superintendent of his branch, has committed misappropriation and embezzlement of the Government money.
The duty list Ex. EW4/1, which bears the signatures of Shri Amrik Singh, enumerates the various duties which were required to be performed by him. One of the primary duties which he was required to perform as Superintendent, Cash and Bills Branch of this Court was to go to the Treasury to get the bills passed and to the State Bank of India to draw the payment of bills. Further, he was required to perform supervisory functions with regard to the maintainability of cash books of Personal Ledger Account of the Registrar of this Court and Election Account regarding Elections Petitions and maintenance of the account of service stamps.
He was a privy to the embezzlement of Rs. 52,000/- in respect of service stamps amount and misappropriation of stamps of RS. 20,000/-which had been withdrawn by Shri Harpal Singh with his active connivance. It appears from the Audit and Inspection Report Ex. EW3/2 that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- which has been shown to be withdrawn on each of the three occasions had been entrusted by Shri Amrik Singh to Shri Harpal Singh on June 5, 1981, July 17, 1981 and November 6, 1981 for the purchase of service stamps. Only service stamps worth Rs. 8,000/- were purchased on November 6, 1981 as is fully brought out in the statement of Shri Mangat Ram Verma E.W.I and the authority letter Ex. EW 1/2. It is further brought out in the statement of Shri Mangat Ram Verma that no service stamps were purchased from the Post Office on May 5, 1981 and July 17, 1981. In order to cover up the misappropriation of Rs. 52,000/- receipt of stamps was recorded in the Cash Book by Shri Harpal Singh as brought out in the statement of Shri Roshan Lal Verma E.W.4 and Shri Mohan Dutt Sharma, E.W.3. Shri Harpal Singh in his statement before the Registrar recorded on December 10, 1981 Ex. E.W. 7/1 has also admitted that he purchased stamps of lesser amount than the amount drawn and he was given blank letters of authority by Shri Amrik Singh, in order to purchase the service stamps from the Post Office. Shri Sharif Masih, in his statement, has stated that he made no physical verification of the service stamps and Shri Harpal Singh or Shri Amrik Singh used to enter the figures and he used to sign them under the belief that the figures are correct.
Another fact which is clear from the record is that the service stamps of Rs. 1/- denomination worth Rs. 20,000/- were purchased on May 30, 1981 on behalf of the High Court on the basis of the authority letter Ex. EW1/1 as testified by Shri Mangat Ram Verma E.W. 1. It is also admitted by Shri Amrik Singh in his statement Ex. E. A. made before the Registrar on December 1, 1981 that for the purchase of service stamps he used to send Shri Harpat Singh to the Post Office and used to give blank authorities for the purpose. He has further stated that he never entered the amount in the authority letter. No entry has been made in the stock register with regard to the disbursement of the stamps of Re. 1/-denomination worth Rs. 20,000/- to the Despatch Branch, as would appear from the statement of Shri Roshan Lal Verma, EW.4 and Shri Mohan Dutt Sharma E.W.3. It was the primary duty of Shri Amrik Singh to have accounted for the disbursement of service stamps but he has failed to do so.
With regard to the second charge as to the misappropriation of stamps worth Rupees 17,000/-, Shri Amrik Singh in his statement Ex.E. W.6/1 made before Shri D.R. Trikha on December 18, 1981, stated that some service stamps were lying in the Almirah, but he did not remember the number and value of the same. This has also been brought in the statement of Shri Harpal Singh, Ex. E. W.6/2 made before Shri D.R. Trikha on December 18, 1981 that service stamps worth Rs. 17,000-were lying with Shri Amrik Singh when he joined this branch of which no account was maintained. Shri Ved Singh, Daftri E.W.5, who was working in Cash Branch of which Shri Amrik Singh was Superintendent, has stated that unaccounted and unused service stamps worth Rs. 16,000/- Rs. 17,000/- were lying in the Almirah of Shri Amrik Singh and he had been taking out those stamps for being used at his asking. I affirm the finding of the Enquiry Officer in this regard.
Coming to the last charge, it has come in the statements of Shri Sharif Masih and Shri Ved Singh E.W.5 that Sharif Mashi was under financial obligation of Shri Amrik Singh who has misused his official position by obtaining the signatures of Shri Sharif Mashi in token of the payment of the salary but would not make actual payment. Finding on this charge is affirmed.
Shri Amrik Sigh had sought to assail the enquiry proceedings by way or CWP No. 2812 of 1983 wherein inter-alia he had prayed for the stay of the further proceedings. The Division Bench, however, was pleased to order that the decision of CW.P. No. 2410 of 1983 be awaited in which it had expressly declined the stay on May 13, 1983.
Viewed from all the angles, the evidence brought on record and the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the charges against Sh. Amrik Singh stand fully substantiated and no case has been made out for imposing any other punishment lesser than the one already proposed to be imposed. It is ordered that he be dismissed from service with immediate effect. Office: Order is issued accordingly."
6. The petitioner challenged the order of the disciplinary authority in a departmental appeal. The same was rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated August 24, 1984. The orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have been challenged by him in CW.P. No. 5630 of 1984.
7. Third charge memo contained in No. 26747 E.I.V.B. dated December 3, 1982, along with the articles of charge, was served upon the petitioner. The articles of charge read thus:
"After considering the Audit and Inspection Report dated April 20, 1982 on the Contingent Account of this Court and other relevant record in this behalf, you Shri Amrik Singh, Superintendent Grade-I are charged as under: -
1. That you while posted as Superintendent Grade-I, Cash and Bills Branch and Cashier of this Court, it was your duty to check the cash book (Non-gazetted) daily and put your signatures regarding correctness of the various entries made in the said cash book. But from July 31, 1981 onwards you neither put your signatures in token of the correctness of the entries made therein with regard to day to day transaction, which led to temporary embezzlement. Therefore, you were grossly negligent in the performance of your duties.
2. That the officials working under your control received Forms H.C.J./AI and H.C.J.D./ II, which is a priced publication detailed in Annexures 'A' and 'B' during the period from April 1,1979 to December 16, 1981 but sale proceeds of these forms were not deposited in State Bank of India within requisite time as required under the rules. You being in charge of the Section, it was your duty to get the amount received from sale of forms deposited in the Bank, but you failed to perform your duty and allowed temporary embezzlement of the Government money.
3. That on March 31, 1981 a sum of Rs. 2663.15 was found as balance in the Misc. head of the cash book (non-gazetted). It was your duty to see that the receipt of the office should have been deposited within 24 hours or at the latest on the next working day of its receipt into the proper head of account "065-Admn. of Justice - Departmental Receipts -Other Receipts", but you failed to do so and committed temporary embezzlement.
4. That from the record it has been revealed that on November 3, 1979 an auction of certain articles was held under the supervision of Superintendent, Account and articles worth Rs. 8007/- were sold. The total amount of Rs. 8007/- was received in parts i.e., on November 3, 1979, November 14, 1979 and March 10, 1980. On March 10, 1980, you had in your custody a sum of Rs.8,007/- but ultimately this amount was deposited by you on November 1, 1980 and thus committed temporary embezzlement.
5. That during the period from April 1, 1979 to December 16, 1981 Shri D.M. Parti was working as Assistant under your control and during the period from May 25, 1979 to January 6, 1981 he received the amounts detailed in Annexure 'C' and you as incharge of the Section were required to see that these amounts are deposited in the Treasury or in the Bank within 24 hours or at the latest on the next working day. The amounts had not been deposited in the Treasury or in the Bank within the prescribed period and as such you failed to perform your duties as Superintendent Grade-I.
6. That during the period of your posting National Savings Certificates/Stamps belonging to 52 officials details of which are at Annexure 'D' were lying with you and it was your duty to check these National Savings Certificates and Stamps every month and to deliver them to the concerned officials on their maturity, on the requirement, of officials or at the time of his death. You were thus negligent in the performance of your official duties."
Shri S.D. Tyagi, District and Session Judge (Vigilance), Haryana, was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The petitioner appeared before him and denied the allegations levelled against him. However, he did not appear before the Enquiry Officer when the inquiry was posted for recording evidence. He was proceeded ex-parte. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated July 19, 1983, found that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. On receipt of the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority, agreeing with the same, tentatively formed an opinion that major punishment of dismissal from service be imposed upon the petitioner. Necessary show cause notice dated July 28, 1983 was served upon the petitioner calling upon him to submit his reply within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice against the penalty proposed. He filed detailed reply to show cause notice. After considering the reply, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated August 31, 1983. The order reads thus:-
"Shri Amrik Singh faced the departmental enquiry in respect of the articles of charge served upon him vide memo No. 26747-E.I./V.B. dated December 3, 1982. The enquiry was entrusted to Shri S.D. Tyagi, District and Sessions Judge (Vig.), Haryana. The said Enquiry Officer had submitted his report dated July 19, 1983 wherein he had come to the conclusion that the department had succeeded in establishing the charges framed against him.
Taking into account the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, I tentatively formed the view that the major punishment of dismissal from service should be imposed upon Shri Amrik Singh. A copy of the report of the Enquiry Officer along with the findings on the articles of charge were furnished to him. Necessary show cause notice was served upon him calling upon him to submit his representation within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice against the proposed penalty.
Shri Amrik Singh has submitted his reply to the show cause notice, wherein he has assailed the findings of the enquiry officer and took up the plea of violation of the principles of natural justice for want of affording him only one opportunity to lead defence evidence. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the points raised by Shri Amrik Singh in his representation dated August 11, 1983.
Shri Mohan Dutt Sharma, E.W.I, had conducted an extensive audit of the records of the Court pertaining to the contingent account for the period April, 1979 to March, 1982 and submitted his report Exh. E.W.1/1. He has also testified that the Cash Book (Non-gazetted) pertaining to the period July 31, 1981 onwards was not checked by Shri Amrik Singh, Superintendent of the Cash and Bills Branch. The stand of Sh. Amrik Singh that the job of writing the cash book was entrusted to Shri D.M. Parti and in his absence Shri Harpal Singh and Roshan Lal Verma from the time he was promoted as Superintendent Grade-I from 1975 onwards, cannot be accepted because he being the Superintendent of the Branch was duty bound, as would appear from duty list Exh. EA, to check the entries of the Cash Book and put his signatures or initials in token thereof. The statement of Shri Mohan Dutt Sharma, E.W.I, amply establishes on record utter negligence on the part of Shri Amrik Singh in performance of his duties and by leaving the cash book unchecked from July 31, 1981 onwards.
The Annexures 'A' and 'B' which had been prepared by Shri Parkash Chand, E.W.6, clearly show that forms HCJD/A-1 and A-2, which is a priced publication were sold during the period April 1, 1979 to March 31, 1982, but the sale proceeds of these forms had not been deposited as required by the rules. This fact has also been emphasised by Shri Mohan Dutt Sharma, E.W. 1. Shri Amrik Singh being incharge of the Section, it was his responsibility to have taken steps to get the sale proceeds of the forms deposited in the Bank. He cannot take any shelter in order to avoid the responsibility for his acts on the plea that this practice was never objected to by the drawing and disbursing Officers and for that reason he cannot shift the responsibility for having committed the temporary embezzlement of the Government money.
The report Ex. EW1/1 coupled with the statement of Shri Mohan Dutt Sharma EW1 and the entries of the Cash Book (Non-gazetted) amply reveal that the cash balance of Rs. 2568.15P was kept in hand by Shri Amrik Singh contrary to the rules. Shri Amrik Singh has again tried to distribute the responsibility for his actions to his Assistants as well as the Drawing and Disbursing Officers ignoring the fact that he could not retain the cash balance of Rs. 2563.15P. with him and was required to deposit the same within 24 hours of its receipt. Rather, the very fact that he retained the amount with him primarily proves that he had temporarily misappropriated this amount. Not only that, Shri R.L. Verma, EW2, has further testified that Rs. 1900/-were handed over by him to Shri Amrik Singh on January 14, 1980. The testimony of Shri Mohan Dutt Sharma, E.W.I, shows that during the period November 3, 1979 to March 10, 1980, a sum of Rs. 8007/- was received by Shri Amrik Singh while he deposited the amount on November 1, 1980 and in this manner Shri Amrik Singh was directly responsible for committing the temporary embezzlement of this amount as well.
The statement of Shri R.L. Verma, EW 2, leaves no manner of doubt that the receipt of cash of the day used to be handed over to Shri Amrik Singh for taking necessary steps to deposit the same in the Treasury/Bank. Annexure 'C' gives the details of the amounts received in this behalf and this Annexure has also been proved by Shri Mohan Dutt Shar-ma. Non-deposit of the cash receipt is the direct result of the non-performance of the duties of the Superintendent by Shri Amrik Singh. Even he had not cared to return the National Savings Certificates and stamps which were lying in his custody. The details of these certificates have been given in the statement of Shri R.K. Khanna E.W.3. The stand of Shri Amrik Singh that many persons mentioned in the list were transferred to Delhi High Court and others who were transferred from this Court had not vacated government houses at proper time and sufficient amount was due against them, would not in any manner exonerate Shri Amrik Singh of the responsibility to take necessary steps for checking the National Savings Certificates and stamps every month so as to deliver them to the concerned officials on maturity, on retirement of the officials or at the time of their death.
Last of all, great emphasis has been laid by Shri Amrik Singh in his representation that principle of natural justice has been violated because he had been afforded only one opportunity to lead defence evidence, but this stand of Shri Amrik Singh is not borne out from record. It would appear from the proceedings of the enquiry file as well as report of the Enquiry Officer that Shri Amrik Singh appeared before the Enquiry Officer on May 11, 1983 and gave statement before him denying the charges levelled against him. When the case was taken up for further proceedings on July 18, 1983, Shri Amrik Singh failed to put in his appearance in spite of his service and for that reason the Enquiry Officer ordered that he be proceeded ex pane. It is, thereafter that exparte evidence was led by the department which culminated in the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. In fact, Shri Amrik Singh has not chosen to participate in the enquiry proceedings and it can be safely presumed that he has no justification to offer qua the evidence led by the department against him. Thus, his contention is devoid of any merit and is rejected.
Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, the evidence brought on record and the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the charges against Shri Amrik Singh are fully substantiated and no case has been made out for imposing any other punishment lesser than the one already proposed to be imposed. It is ordered that he be dismissed from service with immediate effect. Office order be issued accordingly."
The petitioner challenged the order of the disciplinary authority in departmental appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated August 24, 1984. The orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have been challenged by him in C.W.P. No. 5629 of 1984.
8. Shri G.K. Chatrath, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, made the following submissions:
(i) Penalty of dismissal from service cannot be imposed upon the petitioner if he had ceased to be in service. Penalty, if any, can only be imposed under Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972:
(ii) Penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioner is grossly excessive. The employees against whom somewhat identical charges were framed have been imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement or termination from service.
9. In exercise of powers conferred by Clause (2) of Article 229 read with Article 231 of the Constitution of India, the Chief Justice of this Court framed rules regulating the appointment, conditions of service and conduct of persons serving on the staff attached to the High Court. These rules are called the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973 (for short, the Rules). Rule 33 of the Rules says that every member of the establishment of this Court shall retire from service on attaining the age of 58 years, but in exceptional circumstances on public grounds, the Chief Justice may retain a member of the establishment in service up to the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years. Vide notification No. 18, dated July 27, 1978, Rule 33 was partially amended and age of superannuation was raised from 58 years to 60 years. Notification No. 18 dated July 27, 1978 was withdrawn vide Correction Slip No. 40 dated November 17, 1982, whereby the age of superannuation of the employees other than Class IV employees was again fixed at 58 years. However, under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 33, the Chief Justice could in public interest, order that an employee of the establishment of this Court shall be retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years. The petitioner was retired from service on attaining the age of 60 years in view of the amendment in Rule 33 vide Notification No. 18, dated July 27, 1978, whereby the age of retirement was raised to 60 years. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 35 of the Rules says that the rules or orders regulating enquiries into the allegations against Government servants in the service of the Punjab Government shall apply to the enquiries into the conduct of officers and staff attached to this Court.
10. Rule 35 of the Rules provides for penalties that may be imposed upon officers and servants serving on the staff attached to the High Court The substantive provision contained in this rule says that the penalty of dismissal from service can be imposed on the officers and servants serving on the staff attached to the High Court. Once an employee retires, he cannot be said to be either (a) serving on the staff of the High Court, or (b) attached to the High Court. Further, he cannot be said to be in "civil service" of the Government in view of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 33 of the Rules, which says that every member of the High Court establishment shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 58 years. On the relevant date when the petitioner was in the service of the High Court, the age of retirement was 60 years. On attaining the age of 60 years, the petitioner was retired from the service of the High Court. Rule 33(1) of the Rules enables the Chief Justice to retain a member of the High Court establishment in service up to the age of 60 years. It would follow that in case where departmental proceedings are going or contemplated, the power to punish could continue to be operative in case the employee is retained in service on the age of retirement as contemplated by Rule 33. The Chief Justice did not pass any order under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 33 of the Rules. Resultantly, the petitioner was retired from service of this Court on attaining the age of 60 years, viz., August 31, 1982.
11. The orders of dismissal from service were passed against the petitioner on three different counts by the disciplinary authority on June 7, 1983, June 7, 1983 and August 31, 1983, respectively. The orders of dismissal from service were passed after the petitioner had retired from service with effect from the afternoon of August 31, 1982. The orders of dismissal from service are, thus, not envisaged by Rule 35 of the Rules.
12. The question is not res integra. In R.T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State, AIR 1937 PC 27, Lord Roche, speaking for the Board, observed thus:-
"It seems to require no demonstration that an order purporting to remove the appellant from the service at a time when, as their Lordships hold, he had for some months duly and properly ceased to be in the service, was a mere nullity and cannot be sustained."
13. The rule of law laid down by Lord Roche of the Privy Council in R.T. Rangachari's case (supra) was approved by the apex Court in State of Assam v. Padam Ram Borah AIR 1965 SC 473. In that case, Shri Padam Ram Borah was to retire from Government service on January 1, 1961, on attaining the age of 55 years. He was placed under suspension on December 22, 1960 pending a departmental enquiry which had been started against him. The suspension order was followed by another order contained in the Notification dated January 6, 1961, by which the term of service of Shri Borah was extended for a period of three months or till the disposal of the departmental proceedings. The departmental proceedings were not disposed of within the period of three months, which came to an end on March 31, 1961. On May 9, 1961, a third notification was issued vide which the term of service of Shri Borah was extended for a further period of three months with effect from April 1, 1961 or till the disposal of the departmental proceedings, whichever was earlier, Shri Borah challenged the validity of the order dated May 9, 1962 in the High Court of Assam through a civil writ petition presented on May 23, 1961. The apex Court, after considering the Fundamental Rules as applicable to the petitioner laid down that his services came to an end on March 31, 1961 and that the State Government had no jurisdiction to pass an order on May 9, 1961 extending the service of Shri Borah. The State Government could not, by unilateral action, create a fresh contract of service to take effect from April 1, 1961. It was on these proved facts that after reproducing the statement of law laid down by Lord Roche in R.T. Rangachari's ; case (supra) observed thus (at p. 476 of AIR):
"The position is the same. The respondent had ceased to be in service on March 31, 1961 by the very order of the State Government. An order of retention in service passed more than a month thereafter, was a mere nullity and cannot be sustained."
14. To the same effect is the rule of law laid down by the Apex Court in Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam (1978-I-LLJ-17). Sh. Dinesh Chandra Sangma was a District and Sessions Judge at Dibrugarh in the State of Assam, He attained the age of 50 years on February 29, 1976, after serving for about 33 years under the Government. He did not want to continue in service after attaining the age of 50 years. He served a notice on the Government under Fundamental Rule 56(c) as amended by the Governor of Assam under Article 309 of the Constitution by a notification dated July 22, 1975. By this notice, he formally intimated to the Government that he proposed to voluntarily retire from service and requested the Government to treat that as a formal notice under F.R. 56. On July 1, 1976, the Governor of Assam by a notification of that date allowed Shri Sangma to retire from service with effect from August 2, 1976, (afternoon). The High Court also allowed him to go on one month's leave preparatory to retirement with effect from July 2, 1976, on which date he relinquished his charge of office. On July 28, 1976, the State Government amended its earlier order of July 1, 1976, by which Shri Sangma had been allowed to retire from service with effect from August 2, 1976. On July 31, 1976, the High Court also squaring with the Government's order of July 28, 1976, transferred Shri Sangma from Dibrugarh to Dhubri and asked him to join there "immediately after the expiry of his leave." Shri Sangma did not join at Dhubri as ordered by the High Court since, according to him, he had retired from service on August 2, 1976. The precise question which was answered by the apex Court was whether the contract of service came to an end after the request of Shri Sangma for voluntary retirement was accepted by the State Government. The apex Court held that the conditions of F.R. 56(c) had been fulfilled and Shri Sangma must be held to have been voluntarily retired from service as notified by him with effect from August 2, 1976. The subsequent order da ted July 28, 1976 revoking the permission to retire from service was null and void. It will be useful to reproduce the relevant observations of the Apex Court in this context (p.22):
"Since the conditions of F.R. 56(c) are fulfilled hi the instant case, the appellant must be held to have lawfully retired as notified by him with effect from August 2, 1976.
In this view of the matter the permission accorded by the Government to retire and its subsequent order of July 28, 1976, revoking the permission, are ineffectual in law and are therefore null and void. Since the appellant voluntarily retired in accordance with F.R. 56(c), the High Court's order of July 31, 19/6, on the administrative side, transferring him to Dhubri is invalid and is hereby quashed. In the result the judgment and order of the High Court of March 4, 1977, are set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The appeal is allowed with costs in this Court as well as in the High Court."
15. The rule of law laid down in Dinesh Chandra Sangma's case (supra) was reiterated by the Apex Court in B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat, (1978-II-LLJ-34). In para 8 of the report, the apex Court observed thus (p.38) :
"........We are of the view that the proviso contemplates a positive action by the appointing authority. The words 'it shall be open to the appointing authority to withhold permission' would indicate that the appointing authority had got an option to withhold permission and that could be exercised by communicating its intention to withhold permission to the Government servant The appointing authority may have considered the question and might not have taken a decision either way or after considering the facts of the case might have come to the conclusion that it is better to allow the Government servant to retire than take any action against him. For the proviso to become operative it is necessary that the Government should not only take a decision but communicate it to the Government servant. It is not necessary that the communication should reach the Government servant."
Reiterating the rule of law laid down in Sangama's case (supra) the Apex Court in unequivocal terms laid down that once the conditions mentioned in Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules are fulfilled and the Government servant is allowed to retire voluntarily from service, the proviso to Rule 161 (l)(ii) of the Fundamental Rules can only be pressed into service before the Government servant has lawfully retired from service and the appointing authority had a right to withhold permission to retire a Government servant before he has lawfully been retired from service. Permission to retire a Government servant from service can only be withheld if the conditions mentioned in the proviso to Rule-161(2)(ii) of the Fundamental Rules are fulfilled.
16. To the same effect is the rule of law laid down by the Apex Court in C.L. Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1990 SC 463). Shri C.L. Verma was the Chief Municipal Officer of the Municipal Council of Chhidwada in Madhya Pradesh. He was due to superannuate on March 26, 1984 on attaining the age of 58 years. He was placed under suspension on March 28, 1984 and hereafter subjected to disciplinary proceedings. He challenged the order of suspension and the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings against him in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh through a civil writ petition. His claim was negatived by the High Court. He went up in appeal before the Apex Court. While allowing the appeal, the Apex Court observed thus (at. p. 464):
"The question which arose for consideration in the writ petition before the High Court at the instance of the appellant was whether in the fact of the mandate in Rule 29 the administrative order could operate. It is not the stand of the State Government that the order dated May 15, 1981, is one under the proviso to Rule 29. In fact, the tenor of the proviso clearly indicates that it is intended to cover specific cases and individual employees. An administrative instruction cannot compete with a statutory rule and if there be any contrary provisions in the rule the administrative instructions must give way and the rule shall prevail. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant, in terms of Rule 29, ceased to be a Government employee on his attaining the age of 58 yeas, two days prior to the order of suspension. In view of the fact that he had already superannuated, Government had no right to deal with him in its disciplinary jurisdiction available in regard to employees. The ratio of the decision in R.T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State for India in Council (supra) supports the position."
The crux of the decision rendered in C.L, Verma's case is that after a Government servant retires from a Government service, the Government has no right to deal with him in its disciplinary jurisdiction.
17. The disciplinary proceedings which were initiated against the petitioner vide Memo No. 26747-E.I./V.B. dated December 3, 1982 (subject-matter of CWP No. 5629 of 1984) after the petitioner had retired from service with effect from August 31, 1982 for the purpose of imposing a penalty of dismissal from service cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by the apex Court in C.L. Verma's case (supra).
18. The disciplinary proceedings which led to the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service vide orders dated June 7, 1983 under challenge in C.W.P. Nos. 5630 and 5631 of 1984 were initiated against the petitioner before his retirement As observed earlier, under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 35 of the Rules, the rules or orders regulating inquiries into the allegations against the Government servants in the service of Punjab Government apply with necessary modifications to the inquiries into the conduct of officers and staff attached to this Court. Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II, Third Edition, has been made applicable to the officers and staff attached to the High Court for regulating the inquiries into their conduct and it confers powers upon the disciplinary authority for continuing the disciplinary proceedings for the purpose of making an adverse order regarding the grant of or in the quantum of pension allowable to a public servant. The rule enables the disciplinary authority to continue with the proceedings only for passing adverse order regarding the grant of pension. Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II, reads thus:-
"2.2 Recoveries from pension.
(a).... .... ... ...
(b) The Government further reserves to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if, in a departmental or judicial proceedings, 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, be deemed to be a proceedings 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 plea 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; and The Public Service Commission should be consulted before final orders are passed.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this rule-
(a) a departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the officer or pensioner, or if the officer has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date; and
(b) a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted-
(i) in the case of a criminal proceeding, on the date on which the complaint or report of the police officer on which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made; and
(ii) in the case of a civil proceeding, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the Court."
A bare reading of Rule 2.2(b) manifests that the departmental proceedings initiated before the retirement of the officer can be continued or would be deemed to have been initiated under this provision. It further provides for the continuation and conclusion of the proceedings by the authority which originally commenced the same.
19. S.S. Sandhawalia, J. (as he then was) in Dr. Kartar Singh Nikhanj v. The State of Punjab, (1974) 2 Serv LR 339, held thus:-
"That the departmental proceedings" referred to in Rule 2.2(b) may well be a proceeding instituted during the tenure of service of the employee is made manifest by Sub-clause (1) of the proviso to the rule. Indeed the language thereof is unequivocal and admits no other construction except the fact that in specific terms it provides that any such departmental proceeding instituted before retirement not only can be continued but would be deemed to have been initiated under this very provision. It further provides for the continuation and conclusion of the same by the authority which had originally commenced these proceedings. This proviso effectively answers a rather faint argument raised on behalf of the petitioner that the proceedings were earlier initiated under the Punishment and Appeal Rules and could subsequently not be converted into proceedings under Rule 2.2(b). It was probably to obviate any such argument that the proviso to this rule in the State of Punjab has been amended and made exhaustive and a deeming provision has been incorporated therein to hold that the earlier punitive departmental proceedings started shall by a fiction be assumed to have commenced as a proceeding under Rule 2.2(b) itself. That deeming provisions are to be given effect to and are valid has now been conclusively settled by the authoritative observations of the Supreme Court in Gurcharan Das Vaid v. The State of Punjab (1972 Lab. IC 887).
12. A reference to Sub-cluse (2) of the proviso seems to make the matter even more manifest. This provides that even though proceedings may not have been instituted during the tenure of the service yet these can be commenced even after the retirement of an employee provided three other conditions mentioned in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) thereof aresatisfied. If departmental proceedings can be commenced even after the date of the retirement one fails to see what possible bar there can be to the continuation of those which were already pending prior to the superannuation of the employee. If any further aid was at all necessary, i.e. provided by Sub-clause (a) of the explanation which specified the date of the commencement of the departmental proceeding as that on which the statement of charges was issued to him or in case of suspension earlier than from the date of such suspension. It is obvious that during the continuation of the service, proceedings would normally have been launched under the Punishment and Appeal Rules and it is the continuation of such proceeding which is broadly being visualised by Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. If authority was needed (even though the statutory provisions are crystal clear) for such a view, the same is available in the Division Bench judgment of the Mysore High Court in M.D. Lakshmi-pathi v. The State of Mysore 1968 Serv. LR 567. It is significant to note that Rule 2.14 of the Mysore Rules on which reliance was placed is in pari materia with Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Rules referred to above. Construing the abovesaid rule the Division Bench held as follows:-
"A valid order under Rule 95(b) was passed against the petitioner before he retired from service keeping him under suspension on charge of misconduct and not permitting him to retire until the departmental enquiry against him was concluded. Though Rule 95(b) was omitted on March 23, 1965, proviso (a) to the amended Rule 214 applied to the petitioner. The departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner before his retirement could be continued and concluded by the authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service. We are, therefore, of opinion that proviso (a) to Rule 214 applies to the facts of the instant case, and the departmental proceedings instituted against the petitioner could be continued and concluded as if he had continued in service.'
13. I conclude, therefore, that the respondent-State has undoubted power to continue the departmental proceedings earlier initiated against a civil servant from the date of his superannuation under Rule 2.2(b) of the Rules for the purpose of withholding or withdrawing his pension or any part thereof."
20. Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.11, also came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in J.K. Dhri, Chief Engineer Linning/Planning, P.W.D. (Irrigation Branch), Chandigarh v. The State of Punjab (1988 Lab IC 173). In that case, apart from others, one of the questions which arose for consideration before the Full Bench was, whether the disciplinary proceedings which were initiated for imposing punishment could be continued in terms of the provisions of Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.11, for purposes of imposing a cut in pension after the delinquent officer had retired from service. The Bench observed that the departmental inquiries which were initiated for imposition of penalty of dismissal from service could validly be continued against the delinquent officer for purpose of Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.11.
21. Rule 34(1) of the Rules says that in the matter of pension and all other matters regarding the conditions of service for which no provision or insufficient provisions have been made under Rules, the rules and orders for the time being in force and applicable to Government servants appointed to corresponding or comparable Civil Services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union shall apply to the members of the establishment of this Court subject to such modifications, variations and exceptions, if any, in the said rules and orders as the Chief Justice may from time to time specify. By virtue of this provision, the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for short, the Pension Rules) are applicable to the High Court employees. Rules 8 and 9 of the Pension Rules are pari materia with the provisions of Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.11. These rules contemplate (i) that an inquiry commenced prior to the retirement of an employee may be continued after retirement of the purpose of imposition of cut in pension; and (ii) that the inquiry may be commenced after retirement for the imposition of a cut in pension subject to the conditions prescribed in Rule 9(2)(b)(iii) as contemplated by Rule 8 (on account of future conviction/misconduct). From a combined reading of Rules 8 and 9 of the Pension Rules, it can be inferred that no penalty prescribed under Rule 35 of the Rules can be imposed, but the disciplinary authority, if he so chooses, can impose cut in pension if in the disciplinary proceedings initiated before the retirement, the allegations against the officer charged stood proved.
22. Before we part with this judgment, we are constrained to observe that no assistance was rendered by the counsel retained on behalf of the High Court.
23. For the reasons stated above, C.W.P. No. 5629 of 1984 is allowed. The initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and imposition of penalty of dismissal from service against the petitioner are declared void. The orders of dismissal from service dated June 7, 1983 passed by the disciplinary authority and of the appellate authority dated August 24, 1984, which are under challenge in C.W.P. Nos. 5630 and 5631 of 1984, are quashed. However, we leave it open to the disciplinary authority, which in this case is Chief Justice of this Court, to take appropriate action under Rule 9 of the Pension Rules, if he so desires.