HARBANS SINGH VIRDI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On June 19, 1996 a copy of representation submitted by Smt. Onkar Kaur was received in the office of this Court. It was alleged by the applicant that her husband had retired as a Sub Divisional Engineer on February 29, 1980. He had died on November 29, 1995. The gratuity and leave encashment benefits had not been released in spite of various representations. This representation was placed before T.H.B. Chalapathi, J. It was ordered that the representation be treated as a writ petition and it be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. It is C.W.P. 10468 of 1996.

(2.) In pursuance of the order of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the matter was placed before this Bench. A direction for the issue of a notice to the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Building and Roads Branch, Patiala, "to show cause as to why a direction for payment of the retiral benefits as may be due to the deceased husband of the applicant alongwith interest @ 15 per annum be not issued" was given. A written statement was filed. It was inter alia pointed out that the petitioner's husband Mr. H.S. Virdi, "was found responsible for the loss amounting to Rs. 36953.41". The amount of death-cum- retirement gratuity due to him was Rs. 20312/-. This was adjusted against the amount that had to be recovered from him. It was further pointed out that he had filed Civil Writ Petition No. 8056 of 1988 challenging the order for recovery of Rs. 36953.41. In view of the factual position as disclosed by the Department, it was directed that this matter be listed along with Civil Writ Petition No. 8056 of 1988. It was also ordered that the learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No. 8056 of 1988 shall be informed. Both the matters were, thus, listed. However, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) We have perused the record of Civil Writ Petition No. 8056 of 1988. It appears that H.S. Virdi was retired from service on February 29, 1980. The retiral benefits as due to him were not released. Consequently, he had filed a suit for a declaration inter alia praying that he was entitled to the payment of "all his dues pending with the department and retiring pension, gratuity, G.P. Fund------." On August 16, 1983, the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Bhatinda, dismissed the suit as withdrawn with the direction to the defendants "to expeditiously decide the cases of the plaintiff regarding pension, G.P.F., Gratuity and leave preparatory to retirement." Thereafter, vide letter dated February 8, 1984, the Chief Engineer issued a charge sheet to the petitioner under rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. It was inter alia alleged that the petitioner had failed to turn up to hand over the complete charge/record and that he was responsible for the shortage of material which had caused a loss of Rs. 36953.41. He had, thus, betrayed the confidence reposed in him and was guilty of misconduct. The petitioner had submitted a reply. He had submitted that having retired from service, he was no longer a Government employee and as such the provisions of the Punishment and Appeal Rules were not applicable to him. He submitted a detailed reply on merits also. A copy of the petitioner's reply dated February 24, 1984, is as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition. After the lapse of more than four years, the Government passed an order dated July 14, 1988. A copy of this order is at Annexure P-5 with the writ petition. After reproducing the charges against the petitioner and noticing the fact that he had submitted a reply, it was observed as under :-