- (1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the communication dated 26.07.2011 (Annexure P1) whereby show cause notice was issued upon the petitioner for recovery on account of financial loss suffered by the Corporation which pertained to October, 1999. In pursuance of the same, the recovery was also ordered after taking his reply into consideration, vide order dated 07.03.2012 (Annexure P3) @ Rs. 2000/- per month, which was to be deducted from his pension. The said order is under challenge on the ground that it is violative of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Part-II Volume-2 (for short the 'Rules'). The benefit of the recovered amount along with arrears of revised/pensionary benefits including the revised gratuity along with 18% interest on the delayed payment is also prayed for.
(2.) A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that admittedly, the workman already stood retired on 28.02.2007, when the show cause notice dated 26.07.2011 was served upon him to recover the financial loss incurred to the tune of Rs. 70,066/-. A perusal of the show cause notice would go on to show that one Gian Chand, Senior Assistant was also held liable for Rs. 23,355/-, out of the said amount. The said Gian Chand filed CWP No.12461 of 2010 titled Gian Chand Vs. Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Limited which was decided on 11.05.2012 and the same was allowed and benefit was given under Rule 2.2 of the Rules and subsequent proceedings were quashed. As noticed above, the allegations were beyond the period of 4 years when the first show cause notice was issued and therefore, keeping in view the settled principle of law on the issue which has been laid down by the Division Benches of this Court in L.B Gupta Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board,2008 2 ILR(P&H) 163and Baldhir Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others,2008 2 ILR(P&H) 163, the said recovery cannot be sustained.
(3.) In R.C.Gupta Vs. P.S.E.B., 2002 1 RSJ 509, a Division Bench of this Court had quashed the chargesheet dated 26.03.1999 pertained to the allegations of 1984 and the employee had retired on 30.06.1998. Similarly, in O.P.Kharab Vs. HVPN Ltd. & others, 2007 1 ILR(P&H) 613chargesheet which was issued after 4 years, i.e., on 30.10.2003, in respect of the events commencing from May, 1994 to July, 1994, was quashed by holding that the date of institution was date of the departmental proceedings, especially the date when the chargesheet was issued to the petitioner, as per the explanation to Rule 2.2 (b)(4). Relevant observations read as under: "(7) A perusal of the afore-mentioned Rule shows that the respondents could order the recovery from pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the government if a pensioner is found in a department of judicial proceedings to be guilty of grave misconduct or he had caused pecuniary loss to the government by mis-conduct or negligence during his service provided that such an enquiry has been instituted during the period when the officer was on duty. However, if such an enquiry has not been instituted while the officer was on duty and before his retirement then it cannot be instituted in respect of an event which took place more than four years preceding the institution of such proceedings. In other words, an enquiry can only be instituted in respect of an event which has occurred four years before the date of the institution. The explanation appended to Rule 2.2(b)(4) further clarifies that departmental proceedings would be deemed to have been instituted when the charges framed are issued to him. In other words, the date of institution of departmental proceedings would be the date when the charge sheet is issued to the petitioner.";