The main legal point established in the judgment is that recovery from the pension can only be made in cases of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, as per Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral)

The petitioner approached this Court claiming the following substantial reliefs:

(i) That orders dated 25.3.1997, 25.3.2011, 16.6.2012 inquiry report and to hold joint proceedings against the petitioner and Sahi Ram may be quashed and set-aside and the pension of the petitioner may be re-fixed and the respondents may be directed to issue revised PPO in favour of the petitioner. All the arrears may be paid to the petitioner alongwith interest.

(ii) That the suspension order of the petitioner may be revoked and the petitioner may be reinstated in service w.e.f. the date of passing of the suspension order and the petitioner may be held entitled to all financial benefits with all consequential benefits.

(iii) That the respondents may be directed to pay the entire amount of PLA recovered from the DCRG of the petitioner alongwith interest.”

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as pleaded by the petitioner in the petition is that:

(i) He started his career with the respondent-Department as Oiler and Cleaner in the year 1952 in the MPP & Power. Thereafter, the petitioner was absorbed in the respondent-Board in the year 1971. The petitioner served the respondent-Board in various capacities and ultimately was promoted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1987. The petitioner was transferred from Bhawanagar to Electrical Sub Division No.2, Solan in the month of November, 1991 and he joined as Assistant Engineer in Electrical Sub Division No.2, Solan in the month of March, 1992.

(ii) On 28th October, 1992, the respondent-Board auctioned the condemned store articles of the store, which was situated at Solan. The petitioner thereafter was directed by respondent No.2 on 6.11.1992 to release the auctioned lot No. A&D to M/s Pramod Iron Works, Batala after the said firm had deposited 100% payment as successful bidder. The bidder lifted the auctioned lot of material on 17th November, 1992.

(iii) The petitioner got a telephonic call from respondent No.2 that the bidder has picked up some un-auctioned store articles alongwith the auctioned materials. The petitioner thereafter accompanied the respondent No.2 and chased the truck. On the interception of the truck, all the un-auctioned articles were recovered from the bidder. Against the illegal acts of the bidder, an FIR under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the representative firm on 8.11.1992. The name of the petitioner was not figured in the FIR. On the contrary, the petitioner’s name was mentioned in the FIR that he had associated with the inspection team. Thereafter 100% physical verification of the store was carried out by a duly constituted committee and Storekeeper, Sahi Ram, was placed under suspension on 12.11.1992 and a criminal case was instituted against him alongwith one Satish Kumar. Both these persons were acquitted by the competent Court of law.

(iv). Though the name of the petitioner was neither there in the FIR, nor he was dealt with departmentally, yet on 8.12.1992 the petitioner was put under suspension. The respondent-Department vide memo dated 18.2.1993 had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and a detailed charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner vide memo dated 18.2.1993. The perusal of the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner revealed that it was alleged in the charge sheet that when the petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer at Solan, he, in league with Sahi Ram, Storekeeper and in connivance with Satish Kumar, proprietor of M/s Promod Iron Works, G.T. Road, Batala, fraudulently got lifted Board’s material costing Rs. 18.310/- in a private truck bearing No. 1571 alongwith auctioned material with the intention to cheat and cause wrongful loss of the said amount to HPSEB and corresponding against himself, fellow officials and Satish Kumar, proprietor of the firm. It was alleged that the petitioner accepted bribe from Satish Kumar. It was alleged in the charge sheet that