- (1.) Petitioner-Swaran Kaur Kalia is a retired District Education Officer (Elementary Officer), Sangrur. She was appointed as an S.S. Mistress on adhoc basis on 21.1.1982. Her services were regularized on 1.4.1985. Later on, she was appointed as a Head Mistress on selection by the Punjab Public Service Commission, Punjab, with effect from 20.1.1990. Thereafter, she was promoted as a Principal on 3.7.1997 and ultimately she was appointed as a District Education Officer (Elementary Education) Sangrur, on 2.8.2010. Three separate chargesheets were served upon the petitioner on 11.11.2011, 10.1.2012 and 6.2.2012 i.e. within a span of three months. The petitioner was to retire from service on 30.4.2013. The petitioner was placed under suspension from the post of District Education Officer (Elementary Education) Sangrur, with effect from 12.1.2012 and was reinstated in service on 26.3.2013, just before her retirement on 30.4.2013. The petitioner retired from service on 30.4.2013 after rendering more than 31 years of service to the respondent-State of Punjab.
(2.) It is stated that after the inquiries, three punishments were awarded. By the first punishment order dated 7.2.2014 (Annexure-P-2), the petitioner was awarded the punishment of a cut of 5% in her pension for one year. By the second punishment order dated 12.2.2014 (Annexure-P-5), the punishment of 5% cut in her pension was imposed. By the third punishment order dated 21.3.2014 (Annexure-P-8), the punishment of 10% cut in her pension was imposed. At the time of arguments, since the learned counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the inquiries and confined his prayer only to the point of disproportionate punishments and non mentioning of punishment for a stipulated period in the second and third punishment orders and also on the point of late payment of the pensionary benefits, therefore, the other facts need not gone into. The petitioner claims that despite the punishment orders, her pensionary benefits were also paid late. The State, in the reply, has reiterated that the punishments were correctly awarded. The reference has also been made to the charges levelled against the petitioner, which were duly proved during the inquiries. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned State counsel and have also carefully gone through the file.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (in short 'PCS Rules'). The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under this Rule, a cut in the pension can be imposed permanently or for a specified period. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though in the first punishment order, 5% cut in the pension is awarded for one year, however, in the second and third punishment orders, no period has been specified. It is contended that it was mandatory for the authority to mention whether the cut in the pension is permanent or for a specified period. After considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that in the second and third punishment orders, the order is of imposition of 5% and 10% cut respectively in the pension of the petitioner. Once the punishment of cut in the pension is not qualified by the period, for which the cut is imposed, it is deemed to be a permanent cut in the pension. It is not mandatory that word 'permanent' must be used. The language of the punishment orders itself is clear to show that the cut is permanent in nature. However, if it is qualified by the period, for which the cut is imposed, it is deemed to be for a particular period. It being so, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned punishment orders. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that three punishments, imposing total cut of 20% in the pension of the petitioner, out of which 15% is permanent, are excessive and that this Court can always go into the proportionate nature of the punishment, awarded to the petitioner. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the authority of this Court in Harvinder Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2003 133 PunLR 150 . It has been argued that the punishment orders cannot be passed unless a grave mis-conduct is recorded in the inquiry. The reliance has also been placed upon the authorities of the Two Division Benches of Delhi High Court in Union of India and others Versus R.P. Sharma (RTD.), 2013 LabIC 232 and in P.N. Bhat (Prof.) Versus Union of India and others, 2012 194 DLT 675 .;