- (1.) RATTAN Singh joined Food and Supplies Department of State of Punjab on 26 -5 -1972 under the control of Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab. He remained in service till 31 -10 -1991 when he was retired on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years, In 1988, he was placed under suspension and he, along with some other officials of the department of Food and Supplies, was charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated 26 -12 -1988 and 22 -6 -1989. In the year 1990, he was reinstated during the pendency of the inquiry. He gave reply to the charge sheets. Shri S. S. Ghuman, Deputy Director Food and Supplies, Jalandhar was appointed as Inquiry Officer. Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report on 15 -5 -1991. He filed objections to the report of Inquiry Officer when he was in service. Till 31 -10 -1991, no action was taken against him and he was retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 -10 -1991. He was not retained in service after 31 -10 -1991 for completion of any inquiry or discriminatory proceedings against him. Vide order dated 14 -11 -1991, Director Food and Supplies, Punjab ordered de novo inquiry on the same charge sheet. Shri P. S. Mand was appointed a new Inquiry Officer. He was replaced by Shri R. S. Kahlon, Deputy Director, Food and Supplies, Jalandhar vide order dated 18 -5 -1992. Rattan Singh challenged the action of Director, Food and Supplies in ordering de novo inquiry on the same charge sheet in Civil Court at Gurdaspur. Sub -Judge, Gurdaspur gave him injunction restraining the holding of de novo inquiry against him. Order of the Court was served on the defendants and the inquiry proceedings were stopped. Director, Food and Supplies again vide order dated 5 -1 -1994 appointed Shri S. S. Ghuman, Deputy Director, Field, Patiala as Inquiry Officer for conducting de novo inquiry. In the order, it was observed that Shri Ghuman is being appointed as Inquiry Officer as per order of the Court. Rattan Singh filed suit for declaration against the State of Punjab/Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab challenging the order dated 5 -1 -1994 passed by the Director, Field and Supplies Punjab appointing Inquiry Officer for holding inquiry under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 against him and some other employees. By way of consequential relief, he claimed permanent injunction restraining State of Punjab/Director, Food and Supplies Punjab from proceeding against him under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules and also restraining them from conducting any inquiry/disciplinary proceedings against him. It was alleged in the plaint that de novo inquiry is not permissible under the rules. Inquiry Officer has already disclosed his mind and the plaintiff has raised serious objections regarding his findings and conduct during the inquiry proceedings. Plaintiff apprehends injustice at his hands. According to Rules, inquiry can be remanded for clarification on any point and that too with reasons. Fresh order of de novo inquiry cannot be passed. Plaintiff had already disclosed his defence. De novo inquiry is nothing but filling up of the lacunae in the inquiry. Order is mala fide. It was passed only to deprive the plaintiffs legal right. No disciplinary action can be taken against a person, who has retired from service. After 31 -10 -1991, no inquiry can be ordered against him. According to rules, department cannot take cognizance of such stale events, which were more than four years old when he retired.
(2.) DEFENDANT State of Punjab contested the suit of the plaintiff. No de novo inquiry was ordered against the plaintiff. Inquiry was remanded to the Inquiry Officer for further evidence, if any, as per the order of the Court dated 17 -11 -1992, which reads as follows : - Ex parte injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that defendants are restrained from conducting de novo inquiry against the plaintiff. However, defendants are competent to remand the already conducted inquiry for further evidence if any. No fresh inquiry was started against the plaintiff. Action can be taken against an employee even if he has retired for mis -conduct committed by him during his service career. In supersession of order of Government dated 25 -8 -1993 issued vide endorsement No. E -4(i) -93/1693 dated 6 -9 -1993 the case was remanded to Sh. S. S. Ghuman, Deputy Director, Head Office, Chandigarh vide order dated 5 -1 -1994 for considering the points raised by the plaintiff and other delinquents. Further action will be taken on receipt of the report from the Inquiry Officer. No cause of action has arisen to the plaintiff.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : - 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration on the facts as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for ? OPP 3. Whether the impugned order dated 5 -1 -1994 is illegal, null and void ? OPP 4. Relief. 5. Vide order dated 9 -4 -1996, Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gurdaspur decreed the plaintiffs suit for declaration to the effect that order dated 5 -1 -1994 passed by the Director, Food and Supplies is illegal and null and void qua the plaintiff and that defendants would restrain themselves from conducting any inquiry against the plaintiff in pursuance of order dated 5 -1 -1994 Ex. P3, in view of his findings, that when by virtue of order Ex. P3 dated 5 -1 -1994, plaintiff was retired from service and when it was not mentioned that he will be retained in service till the completion of the inquiry. It was found that no inquiry was competent after one's retirement when no order had been passed that he will continue in service till the inquiry was completed notwithstanding he had reached the age of superannuation. 5. State of Punjab went in appeal against the judgment and decree dated 9 -4 -1996 passed by the trial Court. Appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. 6. Still not satisfied, State of Punjab has knocked the door of this Court through this Regular Second Appeal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 8. Learned State counsel submitted that there was no de novo inquiry contemplated against the respondent delinquent. Only the Inquiry already conducted was remanded in view of Rule 91 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, Shri S. S. Ghuman Deputy Director, Quality Head Office, Chandigarh was directed to consider the points raised by the delinquent official and submit his report. It was submitted that retirement shall have no effect on disciplinary proceedings, which were pending against the plaintiff since before his retirement. It was submitted that when the plaintiff was retired, Director Food and Supplies, Punjab passed the following order of 14 -10 -1991 : - 9. Shri Rattan Singh son of Teja Singh, Inspector, Food and Supplies, Gurdaspur is, hereby, retired from the Government service w.e.f. 31 -10 -1991 afternoon after attaining his 58 years age of superannuation. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that there could be no inquiry against the respondent when he had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31 -10 -1991. It was submitted that on 5 -1 -1994 i.e. when the impugned order was passed by the Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab. He was no longer in Government service and as such no inquiry could be ordered against the him, Government employee in Rule 2(d) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1970 means any person appointed to any Civil Service or post in connection with the affairs of the State of Punjab. Punishing authority means the authority competent under these Rules to impose on a Government employee any of the penalties specified in Rule 5. Learned counsel, for the respondent drew my attention to Walaiti Ram Gupta, Sectional Officer v. The State of Punjab (1997) 5 SLR 555 where it was held that no action could be initiated against those, who had already retired from service under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. The State Government has the right to withhold or withdraw pension or part of it in respect of an event which took place within four years before institution of disciplinary proceedings for withholding pension. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram AIR 1970 SC 214 : (1970 Lab IC 271), where it was held as follows (Para 11) : - There can be no doubt that if disciplinary action is sought to be taken against a Government servant it must be done before he retires as provided by the said rule. If a disciplinary enquiry cannot be concluded before the date of such retirement the course open to the Government is to pass an order of suspension and refuse to permit the concerned public servant to retire and retain him in service till such enquiry is completed and a final order is passed therein. 11. He drew my attention to Mukhtiar Chand Dhir v. The State of Punjab (1982) 1 SLR 889 : (1982 Lab IC 117 (NOC) Punj and Har), where it was held that the petitioner was not retained in service in order to complete any enquiry instituted against him and rather enquiry against him, while he was in service, was ordered to be dropped and on that basis not only was the suspension order withdrawn but he was allowed to retire and on reconsideration the Government thought of instituting an enquiry under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1970, which undisputably is a disciplinary action and as a measure can only visit a delinquent Officer yet in service. Rule 2.2. (b) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II, Part I is studded in the rules relating to pensions. Under the Rule 2.2, recoveries from pensions can be made and the Government has reserved the right of withdrawing or withdrawing the pension or any part of it if the pensioner is convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. There is an elaborate procedure prescribed therein how such object can be achieved. Here apparently, the provisions of Rule 2.2 aforesaid were not employed and rather, disciplinary action was sought to be taken against the petitioner under the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. 12. In Mukhtiar Chand's case (1982 Lab IC 117 (NOC)) (supra) departmental proceedings had been initiated against him on 11 -7 -1973 at a time when he stood retired from service and it was held that no disciplinary proceedings could have been initiated against him after he had attained the age of superannuation and when he was relieved and retired from service w.e.f. 4 -1 -1972 and the order of suspension was superseded. No disciplinary inquiry could thus be initiated against the plaintiff respondent after he had retired under Rule 8 of the Punjab Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1970 for imposition of major penalty. 13. For the reasons given above, this appeal fails and is dismissed. 14. Appeal dismissed.;