HARBANS SINGH SIDHU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner filed the present writ petition for the issuance of a writ order or direction for quashing letter dated October 19, 1989 by which respondent No. 2 recommended that Death-cum- Retirement gratuity (hereinafter referred to as gratuity) of the petitioner be not yet released.

(2.) As per the allegations in the petition, the petitioner was posted as Medical Superintendent, in Guru Gobind Singh Hospital at Faridkot. He retired from service on April 30, 1989 on attaining the age of superannuation by order Annexure P-l. Neither any inquiry or other proceedings were pending against him nor he was issued any charge sheet till the date of his retirement. No inquiry or disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against him during the tenure of his service. There was some shortage of medicines in the store of the Hospital and on an inquiry conducted by the Vice Principal, some employees of the Hospital were found responsible, but the petitioner was never associated in the inquiry proceedings. The pension of the petitioner was released but his gratuity was not paid in spite of a representation dated November 28, 1989, Annexure P-2, made by him in that behalf and it has led to the filing of this writ petition.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the respondents, the broad stand taken is that some preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Principal on January 10, 1989 in a case of embezzlement of medicines/hospital material, whose over-all incharge was the petitioner, A case of embezzlement was got registered by the Punjab Government with the Vigilance Department on May 29,1989 and subsequently on November 3, 1989, the Punjab Government considered and ordered to initiate departmental proceedings against the delinquent officers. It is further stated in the written statement that final report of the departmental inquiry was received on September 7, 1989. The respondents also stated that gratuity of the petitioner was withheld in view of rule 2.2.(c) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.11 and that steps were being taken to serve charge sheet on the petitioner, who was also held responsible for the embezzlement.