WASDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while working as Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies at Sirhind was alleged to have received a bribe of Rs. 500.00 from one Gurnam Singh on April 1, 1985. A case was registered against him vide FIR No. 100 dated April 13, 1985, and he was placed under suspension. By an order dated Jan. 23, 1986, the Governor of Punjab passed an order stating that the suspension of the officer has been found wholly unjustified and directed the period of suspension to be treated as duty period for all intents and purpose. Thereafter, the Vigilance Department served a charge- sheet on March 14, 1989, and called for his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation. While the departmental proceedings were pending, the petitioner submitted an application on Dec. 18, 1989, seeking pre- mature retirement from service by giving three months notice. The President of India by an order dated March 15, 1990, allowed the petitioner to take voluntary retirement from Government Service subject to clearance certificate from the Department of Vigilance, Punjab, Chandigarh. Accordingly, the petitioner was permitted voluntary retirement from service with effect from March 17, 1990. Thereafter, the Vigilance Department continued its proceedings and appointed Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations of corruption against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report on April 26, 1993, holding the petitioner guilty of accepting a sum of Rs. 500.00 from Gurnam Singh. Thereafter, a notice ws given to the petitioner on Jan. 25, 1994, to show cause why action should not be taken against him under Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. The petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter an order was passed by the Government of Punjab on Sept. 16, 1994, ordering to make a cut of ten per cent in the pension of the petitioner for taking bribe by him while in service.

(2.) Challenging the said order directing cut in his pension, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this writ petition. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Government has no power under the Punjab Civil Services Rules to order cut in pension unless there is a monetary loss to the Government. According to him, there was no monetary loss or damage caused by him to the Government while in service and, therefore, there cannot be any cut in pension simply because be was found guilty of receiving bribe from a person. According to him, cut in pension can only be imposed if there is a pecuniary loss to the Government.

(3.) The learned DAG, Punjab, has not been able to draw my attention to any of the rules which provide that the cut in pension can be imposed even though there is no loss pecuniary or monetary to the Government but the retired Government servant has been found guilty of any other misconduct while in service. When a serious allegation of corruption had been levelled against the petitioner when he was in service, the State Government ought not to have allowed him to retire from service. But while in service, punishment of dismissal or removeal could have been imposed against the petitioner but having allowed the petitioner to take voluntary retirement it is not open to the Government to order cut in the pension on the ground of his misconduct unless there is a pecuniary loss to the Government. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order under challenge cannot be sustained. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.