SARDUL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, raises an important question of limitation in the matter of prosecuting a retired Government servant for offences alleged to have been committed by him while still in service.

(2.) THE petitioner-Sardul Singh was employed as Sub-Divisional Officer in the Punjab Irrigation Department. On July 22, 1981, First Information Report No. 290 was registered against him and others under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, as also under sections 409, 468, 467, 420, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, on the allegations that he alongwith his other co-accused with a common intention to defraud the State, had prepared false record in respect of 13 tubewells of the Tubewell Section of the Department, showing repairs to these tubewells and had thus misappropriated the Government money. The petitioner was, however, allowed to retire from service on May 31, 1990, by which date the challan had not been put in Court against him. The challan was presented in Court, on 19-1-1991, that is more than 7 months after his retirement. Before his retirement even a charge-sheet was not issued to him. The offences were alleged to have been committed in the year 1978. The prosecution was launched against the petitioner and others after about ten years from the date of alleged commission of the crime. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the trial was barred in view of rule 2.2. of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume 11 whereunder limitation of four years had been prescribed computable from the date of the event which was spelled out as an offence.

(3.) A plain reading of the afore extracted rule puts a fetter that no criminal proceeding can be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years before the date on which a complaint or report of a police officer, on which the Court takes cognizance, is made. Keeping apart whether the officer was in service or retired or reemployed at that time. The embargo on institution of a criminal proceeding though occurring in the Chapter meant for 'Pensions', apparently reserves the right to the Government of withholding or withdrawing a pension, or part of it if the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service or reemployment.