RAJ KUMARI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who has retired from the post of Nursing Sister in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, State of Punjab has invoked the extra -ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court impugning the order dated 8.11.2011, Annexure P 20, whereby a cut of 5% has been imposed upon her pension and a recovery of Rs. 1,34,045/ - has been ordered to be effected from her. Brief facts that would require notice are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Staff Nurse and thereafter promoted as a Nursing Sister from which post she retired on 30.9.2010 upon attaining the age of superannuation. Apparently, while in service the petitioner submitted a claim of Rs. 1,66,605/ - for re -imbursement towards medical treatment of her husband who was a retired employee of the CRPF. Since such claim was not being processed and the payment was not being released to the petitioner, she filed Civil Writ Petition No. 6357 of 2005 in this Court and upon issuance of notice of motion, the Assistant Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur filed a reply stating that a payment of Rs. 1,34,045/ - had been paid to the petitioner vide Cheque No. 013013 dated 19.5.2005. Resultantly, Civil Writ Petition No. 6357 of 2005 was disposed of having been rendered infructuous vide order dated 23.5.2005. It so transpires that upon a complaint having been filed against the petitioner as regards the petitioner having raised the claim for medical re -imbursement of her husband by furnishing a false affidavit that he was dependent upon her, a charge dated 9.4.2008 was issued to her under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 on the following articles of charge:

(2.) UPON the reply furnished by the petitioner to the charge sheet having been found to be unsatisfactory, an Officer of the rank of Deputy Director was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Findings were furnished by the Enquiry Officer against the petitioner and the report of the Enquiry Officer was given to the petitioner seeking her explanation. The Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab vide order dated 17.10.2010 taking a lenient view in the matter on account of the fact that the petitioner had since superannuated took a decision to drop the charge -sheet.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there was no occasion for the State Government to have reviewed the earlier order dated 17.10.2010 passed by the Director, Health and Family Welfare whereby a decision had been taken to drop the charge sheet. That apart, it has been contended that it was open for the State Government not to have admitted the claim of the petitioner as regards re -imbursement of the amount spent towards treatment of her husband and it is the State itself who had furnished a statement before this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6357 of 2005 regarding payment of the amount in question and as such, the State was precluded from having taken a contrary view in terms of passing the impugned order. Learned counsel has also argued that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the provisions of the Medical Attendance Rules, 1940, Vol. I.