PRITAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was serving as Inspector in the Cooperative Societies, Patti, District Amritsar. He retired on 31.12.1993. As per the petitioner 'No Due Certificate' was issued to him and no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him at that time. On retirement, the respondents were under obligation to prepare the pension documents of the petitioner. The petitioner, however, was not released his pension and other retiral benefits. Having waited for some time, the petitioner served notice under Section 80 CPC for release of his pensionary benefits. Despite various reminders nothing moved. On 14.12.1994, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab-respondent No. 3 ordered respondent No. 5 to release the pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner and also asked the department to explain the cause of delay. Instead of releasing pension, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 26.06.1995 relating to an event which was dated 15.04.1991. The petitioner was required to submit his reply within 20 days. Departmental proceedings, thereafter, were initiated against him and were completed on 12.10.1998 i.e. after three years of serving the charge-sheet and approximately after 5 years of his retirement. The petitioner was held guilty of all the three charges levelled against him. The petitioner made a representation pleading that he has been falsely implicated in the departmental inquiry at the instance of Gurdip Singh, Accountant and further requested respondent No. 5 to release his 100% pension. When even the provisional pension was not released, petitioner approached this Court on 14.12.1998 through the present writ petition.

(2.) The writ petition was admitted on 17.11.1999 while admitting the writ petition, the admitting bench observed that prima facie the charge related to the events which had happened in April 1991. The charge-sheet was served on 26.06.1995. The petitioner had retired from service on 31.12.1993. Thus, the charge-sheet was served nearly two years after retirement of the petitioner and was for an event which was more than 4 years prior to the date of issuance of charge-sheet. Further proceedings against the petitioner were stayed. Directions were issued to release the pension to the petitioner provisionally.

(3.) Written statement on behalf of the respondent-State and other respondents is filed. It is stated that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. As per the reply, he is involved in the embezzlement of Rs. 4.45 lacs, as a consequence of which Arbitration cases under Sections 55 and 56 of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 were prepared pertaining to the Bhure Nau Cooperative Agricultural Service Society Ltd. The petitioner was held responsible for embezzlement which he has challenged under Section 68 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. His appeals were dismissed in all the 14 cases of award. The revision filed by the petitioner against the said award was pending. It is, accordingly, stated that the petitioner had not approached this Court with clean hands. Incidentally, the revision was also dismissed and the petitioner has separately challenged the order by filing a writ petition.