Gobind Ram Sharma vs State of Haryana and Others

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—The petitioner has prayed for issuing of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of charge-sheets dated July 5, 2000 (Annexures P-17 and P-18) issued by the Managing Director, Haryana Warehousing Corporation, Panchkula (respondent No.3) and has further prayed for issuing of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant full pension and other retiral benefits along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from August 31, 1998, viz. the date of his retirement.

The petitioner has averred that he had joined the Haryana Warehousing Corporation as Accounts Clerk in the year 1962 and served the same in various capacities. He was finally promoted to the post of District Manager in November, 1990 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on August 31, 1998. His service record remained unblemished for 36 years of his long period of service with the Corporation. He was not paid his emoluments. He sent an application dated September 14/15, 1998 (copy An-nexure P-l) to the Managing Director, Warehousing Corporation, Panchkula (respondent No. 3) intimating him that he had retired with effect from August 31, 1998, but till date, no retiral dues have been paid to him. Another application dated September 26, 1998 (copy Annexure P-2) was sent to the Managing Director of the Corporation (respondent No. 3) requesting him to supply him proforma to get pension commuted and also to release his retiral benefits. Again another application dated October 24, 1998 (Annexure P-3) was sent to the Managing Director of the Corporation (respondent No.3) pointing out therein that some officers who had retired on August 31, 1998 have already been paid their retiral dues while the petitioner has not been paid anything. The payment of Rs. 5,600/- which was due towards the Group Insurance Scheme was made to him through the District Manager, Haryana Warehousing Corporation, Rewari on November 9, 1998. He made another representation dated November 10, 1998 (copy Annexure P-5) to respondent No. 3, but no reply was given to him. He met the Managing Director, Warehousing Corporation, Panchkula, personally on November 26, 1998 and submitted him an application in writing (copy Annexure P-6) requiring therein to fix his pension and to release his retiral dues through the District Manager, Haryana Warehousing Corporation. Ambata City.

It has been further averred that a legal notice was issued to the Managing Director of the Corporation (respondent No.3) on December 16, 199S, a copy of which is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-7. A part payment of Rs. 59,787/- towards the General Provident Fund was released, which was received by him on December 21, 1998. He filed Civil Writ Petition No. 3398 of 1999 in this Court seeking a direction to be issued to the respondents to release him the retiral benefits. When the matter came up for hearing, a Division Bench of this Court passed an order on March 12, 1999 directing respondent No.3 to consider and take action in accordance with law on the legal notice dated December 16, 1998 (Annexure P-7) within a period of two months, a copy of which is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-8. It has been further averred that the amount of Rs. 2,09,840/- on account of Gratuity and an amount of Rs. 1,31,150/- on account of leave encashment was sanctioned by the Managing Director, Haryana Warehousing Corporation, Panchkula vide order dated May 6, 1999 (copies Annexures P-11 and P-12). On June 24, 1999 the provisional pension in the sum of Rs. 5,334/- per month with effect from September 1, 1998 was granted to him. He, however, did not receive the sanctioned amount of gratuity and leave encashment, as referred to above. It has been further averred that he filed C.O.C.P. No. 962 of 1999 for issuing of a suitable direction against the respondents to comply with the order dated March 12, 1999 passed by a Division Bench of this Court and this C.O.C.P. was disposed of by a Single Bench of this Court vide order dated August 3, 1999 (copy Annexure P-13) giving a direction to respondent No.3 that a decision positively be taken within two months on receiving a certified copy of this order so that the petitioner is not put to unnecessary harassment, but no action was taken on this order by respondent No.3. Another C.O.C.P.No. 1392 of 1999 was instituted for issuing of a suitable direction. The Managing Director of the Corporation (respondent No.3), in order to pre-empt the contempt proceedings, decided the legal notice dated December 16, 1998 (copy Annexure P-7) and informed the petitioner vide letter dated April 24, 2000 (copy Annexure P-16) stating that the payment of gratuity, leave encashment etc. cannot be made till ''No Dues Certificate'' is finilised. Two charge-sheets both dated July 5, 2000 (copies Annexures P-17 and P-18) mentioning therein the alleged acts of negligence on the part of the petitioner, while in service of the Corporation during the year 1987, were sent to him.

Notice of motion was issued.

Written statement on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the prayer for quashing the chargesheets both dated July 5, 2000 (copies Annexures P-17 and P-18) made in this writ petition should be raised before the Enquiry Officer, therefore, the writ petition is pre-mature and is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued and drawn my attention to the provisions of the Haryana Warehousing Corporation Employees Pension Regulations 1996"). (hereinafter referred to as "The Pension Regulations 1996"). The relevant Regulation Nos. 10(2) and (3) of the Pension Regulations, 1996 are reproduced as under:-

"10(2) Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted, while the employee was in service, before his retirement.

(i) xx xx x (ii) Shall not be instituted in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and

(iii) xx xx x

(3) No such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution."

Regulation No. 10(2)(ii) of the Pension Regulations, 1996 clearly speaks that any event, which took place for more than four years before the retirement of an employee, cannot be taken into consideration for granting of retiral benefits. Both the charge-sheets (Annexures P-17 and P-18) have been issued on July 5, 2000 pertaining to the misconduct on the part of the petitioner during the year 1987. This is in clear violation of Regulation No. 10 of the Pension Regulations, 1996.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the decision rendered in the case of State of U.P. and Anr. v. Shri Krishan Pandey AIR 1996 SC 1956 wherein it has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that in the departmental enquiry, proceedings against a retired employee, must be instituted within four years from the date of his misconduct. The alleged event of embezzlement by the delinquent employee pertains to the year 1987 prior to the date of his retirement. This has vitiated the departmental proceedings. This Hon''ble Court has also held in the case of Punjab State v. Rattan Singh 2000(4) R.S.J. 736 that no disciplinary inquiry could be initiated against the delinquent under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 for imposition of major penalty after he had retired.

Since the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, as referred to above, the impugned charge-sheets both dated July 5, 2000 (Copies Annexures P-17 and P-18) are quashed. The respondents are directed to grant the full pension to the petitioner and also to pay all his retiral dues along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within a period of two months from the date of passing of this judgment.

With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed.