LAKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the service with the respondents as Lecturer in Electrical Engineering and was posted at Government Polytechnic, Sirsa on September 2, 1965. He was regularised on the same post and was posted on 4.9.1966 at J.R. Polytechnic, Hoshiarpur. He was promoted as Head of the Department of Electrical Engineering and was posted at Government Polytechnic Guru Teg Bahadur, Faridkot in October 1980. In the year 1981, he was promoted as Principal in the same institution. The last posting which was held by the petitioner before his superannuation was as Principal in Government Polytechnic College for Women, Ludhiana, in January 1995. The petitioner superannuated upon attaining the age of 58 years on 28.2.1999. The petitioner was appointed as Member of a Sub Committee comprising of Shri J.M. Malhotra, Shri D.C. Sharma and the petitioner. The scope of the Sub Committee was to submit a list of lowest tenderers for supplying some machinery in pursuant to the tenders which had been invited by the Directorate. It is stated that the matter relating to the said functioning of the said Committee was investigated by the Vigilance Bureau, Punjab and F.I.R. No. 22 dated March 22, 1996 came to be registered under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 4.4.1996 on account of the registration of the above mentioned FIR. However, the said orders were revoked by the Governor of Punjab vide order dated 17.7.1996. As a sequel thereto, the petitioner assumed the charge of the post of Principal at Ludhiana and remained posted as such till attaining the age of superannuation on February 28, 1999. It may be noticed here that while issuing notification, the Governor of Punjab observed that pensionary benefits shall not be given to the petitioner till the clearance/No Objection Certificate is granted by the Vigilance Department. The petitioner made various representations seeking release of his retiral benefits and in pursuant to his efforts, the authorities sanctioned 90% of the General Provident Fund (GPF) amount to the petitioner vide order dated March 4, 1999 and the remaining 10% GPF was sanctioned by the said authority on March 5, 1999. Thus, the payment of Rs. 2,03,566/- was made on 7.6.1999 and that of Rs. 20,370/- on 29.9.1999. Thereafter, the authorities sanctioned provisional pension to the petitioner under rule 9.14(1)(d) of the Punjab Civil Services, Vol. 11 Rules vide order dated 13.9.1999 and the payment was actually released to the petitioner on 22.11.1999. Similarly, the amount of GIS (Group Insurance Scheme) amounting to Rs. 32,368/- was also released on 31.12.1999. The petitioner was not satisfied as the complete retiral benefits had not been released in favour of the petitioner, as such the petitioner submitted representations dated September 23, 1999 and October 20, 1999 respectively whereby it had been specifically stated that a period of three and half years had passed from the date of registration of the FIR but no challan had been filed by the authority concerned in the Court. The petitioner claimed that the amounts which are due and payable to the petitioner under the two heads i.e. leave encashment for ten months and death-cum-retirement gratuity (DCRG) and further claimed commutation of pension as in that regard, the requisite papers had been filed with the Government. Despite the representation nothing was heard from the Government. Thus aggrieved of this inaction on the part of the Government, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. Rule had been issued vide order dated 24.4.2000 and the matter was ordered to be listed before the appropriate Bench for directions on July 27, 2000.

(2.) Government filed written statement and has taken the plea that the payments due and payable in respect of leave encashment, DCRG and commutation of pension could not be permitted as the case stood registered against the petitioner and others and the same is still pending. As per the provisions of law contained in the Punjab Civil Service Rules and the notification issued by the Government, the same could not be released as the judicial proceedings are pending and would be released on the finalisation of the said proceedings. So far as the case of Shri J.M. Malhotra, similarly situated member of Sub Committee is concerned, he had retired on November 30, 1994 whereas the FIR had been registered on 22.3.1996 as such the said case cannot be considered at par with the case of the petitioner. Thus, the petition merits dismissal on this ground.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the plea of the government is devoid of any merit because the leaved encashment and gratuity payable can only be withheld if the departmental proceedings or the judicial proceedings are pending aforesaid the officer concerned at the time of his retirement but that is not the case of the petitioner. The petitioner had retired on February 28, 1999 and till that even challan had not been put in Court though the FIR had been registered on March 22, 1994. In any case, no case would be registerable after the expiry of four years from the date of the incident as envisaged under the rules. Learned counsel made reference to clause (b) of Rule 2.2 and proviso (3) of Clause (b) to rule 2.2 which read as under :-