BAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 25.1.2010 (Annexure P-6) vide which the Chief Engineer (South) Punjab Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Patiala-respondent No. 2 has dismissed the petitioner from service with retrospective effect, after he has been allowed to retire on 31.10.2006 (Annexure P-l) and the order dated 18.6.2012 (Annexure P-12) vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner while working as Superintendent in Water Supply and Sanitation Division, Jalandhar was involved in a criminal case which was registered against him under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 31.10.2006 (Annexure P-l) and he was granted provisional pension. After the date of retirement, in the criminal case which was initiated against the petitioner, he was convicted by the Special Court, Gurdaspur on 9.1.2007. Against the said judgment, petitioner preferred an appeal in this Court i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 156-SB of 2007 which was dismissed by this Court. Special Leave Petition No. 2035 of 2009 preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on 9.4.2009. After the finalization of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the department proceeded to consider his claim and dismissed him from service vide impugned order dated 25.1.2010 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal which was also rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.6.2012 (Annexure P-12). It is at this stage that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition challenging the two orders passed by the respondents.

(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner once having been allowed to retire from service cannot be dismissed from service with retrospective effect as the maximum punishment which can be imposed upon the petitioner would be imposing those punishments as are permissible under the Punjab Civil Services Rules. He accordingly contends that the dismissal order with retrospective effect cannot be passed by the respondents. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Amrik Singh, 1995 2 SCT 613. Reliance has also been placed upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in ENVIRONMENTAL AND CONSUMER PROTECTION FOUNDATION v. DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS, 2013 1 SCT 826: LPA No. 164 of 2013 titled as The Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development and Finance Corporation v. Tarsem Singh decided on 28.1.2013. He accordingly contends that the impugned orders cannot sustain.

(3.) Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner having been convicted in the criminal proceedings initiated against him, which order having attained finality upto the Supreme Court, the respondents have rightly dismissed the petitioner from service as he was not entitled to any service benefit. He contends that provisional pension of the petitioner was stopped by the respondents vide order dated 29.4.2008 (Annexure P-5). His contention is that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit as has been claimed by him in the present writ petition. However, he could not dispute the fact that during the period when the petitioner was in service, no departmental proceedings were initiated against him.