A.K. Goel, Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, JJ. - (1.) THE present petition depicts state of affairs where an employer can become vindictive simply because the employee has succeeded in the bout of litigation upto Hon'ble Apex Court.
(2.) THE facts which emerge from the writ petition and the return filed thereto can be briefly stated as under: Petitioner was appointed as Sectional Officer (Civil) in Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the 'employer') on 15.10.1970. On 21.12.1987 his services were terminated. He raised an industrial dispute, succeeded in the Labour Court and on 10.10.1997 award (Annexure P2) was given in his favour. The employer being not satisfied, filed a petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 5850 of 1998). The same was dismissed and was further made subject matter of special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 11223 of 1998. The same was also dismissed on 22.9.1998. Thereby litigation attained finality in favour of petitioner. The petitioner was due to retire on attaining superannuation on 31.8.2004. 13 days before his retirement, he was served a charge -sheet, wherein it was stated that he had not furnished measurement books, which according to serial numbers given were 36 in number and pertained to the years 1970 to 1985 and had not accounted for expenditure made and advance amount. It would be pertinent to note that those measurement -books pertain to the years prior to the termination of the petitioner. A perusal of the award (Annexure P2) will show that one of the issues was conduct of the petitioner being a workman negligent and careless in performance of his duties. It is a matter of dismay for us that from termination in 1987 till the decision of the award in 1997, no where a plea was raised that the measurement books have not been returned or that the petitioner had not rendered the accounts of works done under his supervision. In view of the fact that the petitioner has succeeded in Labour Court, High Court and then in the Apex Court, we are unable to find any justification for not serving the charge - sheet upon him immediately on his reinstatement arid what prompted the employer to serve the charge -sheet only 13 days before the retirement. The petitioner has forcefully raised the plea that Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Agricultural University Statute comes to his rescue and in respect of an event which took place more than 4 years before his retirement the same could not be served upon the petitioner for reduction of pension. Rule 2.2(b) reads as under: The Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in a departmental judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence,, during his service including service rendered on re -employment after retirement". Provided that: 1. Such departmental .proceedings, if instituted while the officer was in service whether before his retirement or during his re -employment shall after the final retirement of the officer, be deemed to be a proceeding under this Article and shall be continued and concluded by the Authority by which it was commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service. 2. Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service whether before his retirement or during his re -employment: (i) Shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government, (ii) Shall not be in respect of an event winch took place more than 4 years before the institution; (iii) Shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings with which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer during his service.
(3.) PETITIONER in the present petition has sought quashing of impugned order dated 21.2.2006 (Annexure P -12) whereby 1/4th of his pension has been reduced and recovery has been ordered along with order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 15.12.2006 (Annexure P -15), whereby order Annexure P -12 was affirmed.;