- (1.) The petitioner who had been serving as a Restorer in this Court was charge-sheeted on 16.1.2006 under Rule 35 of the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1973 read with Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. The articles of charge as contained in the charge sheet were in the following terms: 1. "That you acquired H.No.3056A, Sector 52, Chandigarh, without getting any permission from this office and thus violated rule 18(2) of the Govt. Employees Conduct Rules, 1966. 2.That you have been maintaining S/B A/C No.011022 with State Bank of Patiala, High Court Branch, Chandigarh, which contains 27 transactions of Rs. 10,000/- and above during the period from 3.1.2000 to 3.8.2005, whereas your net salary during the years is Rs. 5600/- to 6000/- P.M. Approx. Thus, these transactions are beyond your known sources of income. 3.That you are maintaining two Telephone Nos.2744305 and 2744541. The first telephone number is in your name whereas the other is in the name of your sister. You have paid the following amounts as telephone bills against your telephone No.2744305, which is not possible to meet from your meager source of income from the salary which remained between Rs. 5600/- to 6000/- during this period:- JUDGEMENT_385_LAWS(P&H)8_20121.html 4. That you purchased 400 Sq.Yards plot of village Bishanpura Sub Tehsil Dera Bassi, in the name of your sister, Ms.Promila without getting any permission from this office and thus violated the rule 18(2) of the Govt. Employees Conduct Rules, 1966."
(2.) The charges against the petitioner were with regard to having failed to maintain absolute integrity and having violated the Government Employees (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The petitioner submitted his reply on 27.3.2006 and upon consideration of the same, regular departmental enquiry was ordered. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial)-cum-Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 28.2.2008 whereby charge No.2 was partly proved and charge No.3 stood proved against the petitioner. A copy of the enquiry report was duly supplied to the petitioner. Objections were filed by the petitioner against the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer. After following due process, vide order dated 11.6.2008, the extreme penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the petitioner.
(3.) The petitioner preferred a service appeal against order dated 11.6.2008 and in terms of order dated 21.4.2009 passed by this Court on the administrative side, the service appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed and it was directed that instead of penalty of dismissal from service, the petitioner would be deemed to have retired on 30.6.2008 on attaining the age of super-annuation and the period from 11.6.2008 i.e. the date of dismissal till 30.6.2008 was directed to be treated as leave of the kind due. Still further, the penalty of 30% cut in pension of the petitioner was imposed.;