RITU BAHRI,J. - (1.) The petitioner is seeking quashing of the show cause notices dated 26.04.2013 (Annexures P -3 and P -4) issued by the respondent. Gaganjit Singh -petitioner joined the services on 03.12.1979 as Fine Moharir in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur. Later on, departmental proceedings were initiated against him and he was awarded punishment. On administrative side, this Court allowed his appeal vide orders dated 07.09.2005 and 28.09.2005 (Annexures P -1 & P -2). Keeping in view that the petitioner had rendered more than 20 years of service as on 11.05.2000, a lenient view was taken and the order of dismissal from service was modified to compulsory retirement and he was held entitled to all the retiral benefits. The petitioner was facing a trial in FIR No.501 dated 23.12.2000, under Sections 198, 465, 468, 471 and 201 IPC. Vide order dated 06.01.2010, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur acquitted the petitioner under Sections 465, 468 and 201 IPC, but convicted him under Sections 471 and 198 IPC. On appeal, he was acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide order dated 05.10.2012. During the pendency of criminal trial, provisional pension of the petitioner was stopped. Thereafter, he filed CWP No.16880 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2013. During the pendency of said petition, the petitioner was issued two show cause notices on 26.04.2013 (Annexures P -3 & P -4) simultaneously pertaining to the exparte enquiry held in March, 2001.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, who had already been compulsorily retired in 2005, has been issued the aforesaid show cause notices after a gap of almost 8 years with respect to an exparte enquiry, which had been concluded in the year 2001. He has referred to the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Inderjit Singh Wasu Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2007 (2) ILR (P&H) 134, to contend that after retirement, no charge -sheet can be issued against an employee because relationship of employer and employee comes to an end with the superannuation of an employee. After retirement, only those proceedings are allowed to continue, which have been initiated during the course of employment and if, an employe is found guilty, then either a cut in his pension could be imposed or recovery could be effected from his gratuity. In the present case, the enquiry was concluded way back in the year 2001 and punishment of dismissal was reduced to compulsory retirement in 2005. Therefore, the relationship of employer and employee came to an end between the petitioner and the respondent. Even if, the enquiry was concluded exparte, the show cause notice to impose major punishment has been issued after 8 years of his retirement, which could not be done as per the aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court. She has referred to a decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kirti Bhusan Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1986 Supreme Court 2116, where an employee had been retired on invalid pension during pendency of disciplinary proceedings before attaining the age of retirement. After concluding the disciplinary proceedings, the Government revoked the order of retirement and dismissed him from service. The State Government took a stand that during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings, invalid pension could not be granted to an employee on medical ground before attaining the age of retirement and hence, after concluding the departmental proceedings, the Government had a right to revoke the retirement order and dismiss him from service. The dismissal order passed after retirement of the employee was held as nullity. She has further referred to a Full Bench judgment passed by the Kerala High Court in R.P. Nair and another Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and others, 1979 (1) SLR 384, to contend that once an employee has been retired as per Regulation 9 of the Service Rules of the Kerala State Electricity Board, the disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated or continued after retirement.
(3.) On the other hand, the stand taken by the respondent in his written statement is that many departmental proceedings were pending against the petitioner and one of the proceedings, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 11.05.2000. However, the order of punishment of dismissal was modified to punishment of compulsory retirement vide order dated 07.09.2005. Before the order of dismissal was passed, the petitioner was charge -sheeted on 04.02.1999 (Annexure R -1). In another enquiry, he was also charge -sheeted vide memo dated 04.06.1999 (Annexure R -3). During the pendency of above mentioned disciplinary proceedings, the order dated 11.05.2000 dismissing him from service was passed. Thereafter, on 19.04.2002 (Annexure R -5), the disciplinary authority adjourned the proceedings sine die and the same were to be put up in case the petitioner was reinstated. After the punishment of dismissal was modified to that of punishment of compulsory retirement in 2005, the competent authority revived the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner vide order dated 04.10.2005. A further direction was given that the pension papers be prepared and sent to the concerned quarter. While passing the order of restoration of provisional pension vide order dated 26.07.2013 (Annexure R -7), it was further observed that certain other enquiries were still pending against the petitioner and the provisional pension was subject to final conclusion of such enquiries. Thereafter, the show cause notices dated 26.04.2013 (Annexures P -3 and P -4) were issued. A separate order was passed by the respondent to find out who was responsible for keeping the enquiries pending/unattended and dumped. The report of the Inquiry Officer dated 25.03.2014 has been annexed as Annexure R -8.;