On December 07, 2022, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while quashing the departmental proceedings against a retired inspector observed that the commencement of such proceedings is unsustainable if the misconduct was done four years prior to the date of issuance of the charge sheet.
Brief Facts:
On 15.11.1981, the petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the Haryana Police. Thereafter, he earned promotions to the posts of Head Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector, Sub Inspector and in the year 2009 was promoted as an Inspector from which post he superannuated on 30.06.2019. After attaining the age of superannuation, he was granted one year's extension in service which came to an end on 30.06.2020. Thereafter, on 05.08.2021 the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Haryana accorded necessary permission to initiate a departmental inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 12.2(b) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016, on the basis whereof the Superintendent of Police, Commando (H) Newal, Karnal passed an order dated 05.10.2021 through which the petitioner was informed that a regular departmental inquiry had been ordered against him.
Along with such an order, a charge-sheet was also served upon the petitioner as per which the alleged misconduct by him was that between the years 1986-88, while he was posted at Karnal, he had undergone his LLB course from Nehru Memorial Law College, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan and Mehrisi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer, Rajasthan and since he could not have been present at both the places at the same time, he had fudged the record at either place. The petitioner took a defence that after he had retired from his service, he could not be departmentally proceeded against for a misconduct which had taken place beyond four years from the date of institution of the departmental proceedings. The petitioner did not receive any response and the inquiry proceedings were continued. Hence, the petitioner filed the present petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had retired from his service on 30.06.2019 and even the extension of his service for one year had ended on 30.06.2020. Since, the alleged misconduct took place between the years 1986-88, the impugned departmental proceedings were barred under Rule 12.2(b) read with Rule 12(5)(a) of Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016. The counsel further placed his reliance on the judgements of cases, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala and others vs. Atma Singh Grewal, Baldhir Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, Sub Inspector Puran Chand (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab and others, and L.B. Gupta vs. Punjab State Electricity Board.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel representing the state submitted that after the petitioner had superannuated, he was given one year's extension in his service and during this period a complaint was received against the petitioner that between the years 1986-88, he had also undergone the LLB course from Rajasthan and since he could not be present at two places at the same time, he had apparently wrongly shown himself present at either place. On the basis of the said complaint a discreet inquiry was held which went against the petitioner. Accordingly, a regular departmental inquiry was rightly ordered against the petitioner.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble court observed that after a harmonious reading of Rules 12.2(b) and 12(5)(a) the only irresistible conclusion inferred was that after an employee had retired from the service there was a complete embargo on the initiation of departmental proceedings against him in respect of event(s) which may have had taken place more than four years prior to the initiation of the departmental proceedings and that the date of initiation of such departmental proceedings was deemed to be the date when a charge-sheet was issued to the concerned government employee/pensioner/government employee placed under suspension.
The court further observed that “the object behind these Rules is that a retired employee, after the statutory period of four years, should be left to live in peace in the twilight zone of his life. The alleged misconduct on his part should be allowed to settle with the efflux of time. The rational appears to be based on the phrase 'let bygones be bygones'.”
In the end, Hon’ble court added that the alleged misconduct by the petitioner was prior to four years from the date of issuance of the charge-sheet. Since by that time he had retired, such action on the part of the State was barred under Rule 12.2(b) read with Rule 12(5)(a) of the Rules and therefore unsustainable.
The Decision of the Court:
The petition was allowed and the e impugned departmental proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
Case Title: Raj Pal Vs. State of Haryana and others
Coram: Justice Deepak Sibal
Case No.- CWP-5842-2022
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. B.S. Rana and Mr. Nayandeep Rana
Advocate for Respondents: Mr.Tapan Kumar Yadav
Read Judgement;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
![[Asian Games]-Delhi HC appoints Abhinav Bindra, MM Somaya to Committee overseeing disbursement of funds to Sports Federations](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_s1hPZOMNbJhQyP1dQIGmTj4HgxD6ek57pOFIbKTmar7Cqzsyqa91xQcht93K9UPiZLYNv6eatKfCCR-iyhUjJ8pFSAo5NRlPhcPG47BtzeVibGkM7y0ksS2p3su6d5gJ8_dIcGr3cqwXcLys9AJy-auJ3SBJqsIScsU3oSONFOKrDgLpP8=w72-h72-p-k-no-nu)
0 Comments