GIAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 31.12.2011 (Annexure P5) whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service, with retrospective effect, from 30.06.2006, which is the date of his retirement. Further prayer is for issuance of direction to the respondents to release the petitioner's 100% provisional pension from the date of his retirement instead of 75%, which has been paid and to release the other retiral benefits. The facts which would be necessary is that the petitioner was appointed as JBT Teacher in the year 1972. He was involved in a criminal case in FIR No. 119 dated 23.10.2001 under Ss. 323, 324, 198 & 199 IPC. However, during his service period, he was promoted as Head Teacher in the year 2005. He was charge sheeted departmentally on account of tampering with the attendance register on 27.10.2005. He submitted his reply on 16.11.2005 and no further action was taken on the departmental side and he was allowed to retire on 30.06.2006 (Annexure P1). After 4 years, the conviction order was passed in the abovesaid FIR whereby he was sentenced for 2 years with a fine of Rs. 2000/ -. Respondent No. 2 dismissed the petitioner from service on two counts, regarding the allegation of tampering with the office record on the ground that it had been proved against him in the enquiry report and on account of the conviction w.e.f. 30.06.2006, in terms of Rule 5(viii) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1970. Resultantly, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Specific averment has been made that on the departmental side, regarding the charge of tampering with the office record, no regular enquiry was conducted prior to his retirement. The said fact has not been denied; rather in para No. 7 of the written statement, as noted in the impugned order, both the issues of criminal case and the charge of tampering with the school record, were taken together and it has been averred that no further enquiry was required, in view of the conviction. Nothing has been placed on record to show that any Enquiry Officer had been appointed and enquiry had been conducted. The two charges were totally separate; one of tampering with the record on which proceedings had been initiated on the departmental side, but not taken to its logical end and the FIR, in which conviction was recorded, was on account of a quarrel, which was not connected with the petitioner's discharge of duties.

(3.) Even otherwise, it is settled principle that the dismissal of service, with retrospective effect, could not have been effected by the respondents, especially since there was no relationship of employee/employer. Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of this Court in Tarsem Singh v/s. The Punjab Scheduled Castes Land Development & Finance Corporation, : 2013(2) S.C.T. 342 wherein it has been held that on account of no relationship of master and servant, the petitioner could not have been dismissed, with retrospective effect. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: