SURENDRA MOHAN PANDIT Vs. GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who has retired as Superintending Engineer P.W.D. (B&R) on 31.7.1988, has come to this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the quashing of charge-sheet issued against the petitioner vide letter dated 22.12.1988 a copy of which is Annexure P-8 to the writ petition for the alleged irregularities committed by him in construction of Industrial Sheds at Rajpura during 1973-74 and for excessive payment to the contractor in execution of the sub-standard work. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction to the department to release all the retiring benefits as they have been withheld illegally and without any justification.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he joined the P.W.D. (B&R) department as Sectional Officer and was promoted from Sectional Officer to Sub-Divisional Officer, and from Sub Divisional Officer to Executive Engineer and from Executive Engineer to Superintending Engineer on the basis of his good service record throughout his service career. It has been alleged that in the year 1974 petitioner's explanation was called by Superintending Engineer vide letter dated 8.10.1974 for excessive payment to the contractor and execution of sub-standard work. According to the petitioner, he submitted his reply copy of which is Annexure P-2 to the writ petition, but no action was taken against the petitioner in respect of these charges and he earned his due promotion from the post of Executive Engineer to that of Superintending Engineer. Consequently, the petitioner presumed that the charge-sheet has been dropped. The petitioner retired on 31.8.1988 but to his dismay a notice was published in The Tribune dated 3.10.1988 regarding some charge-sheet after superannuation of the petitioner. Thought the petitioner remained present in the office on 29.8.1988, 30.8.1988 and 31.8.1988, no charge-sheet was served upon him. The petition replied the charge-sheet which appeared in The Tribune in a section of the press vide his letter dated 5.10.1988 and denied the correctness the charges levelled against him. It was alleged that though the petitioner retired on 31.8.1988(AN) he had been denied the retirement benefits, like leave encashment, group insurance scheme, and even his request for communication of pension had not been considered at all. The petitioner submitted representation dated 31.12.1988 copy of which is Annexure P-6.

(3.) Mr. M.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that though the petitioner had retired on 31.8.1988, the proceedings against him were initiated or the alleged irregularities relating to the year 1973-74 and the same is contrary to Rule 2.2(b)(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). According to the counsel no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution.