Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 520
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
KULDIP SINGH, J.
Baljeet Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited and others - Respondents
CWP No. 1850 of 2015 (O/M)
Decided On : 05-05-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate.
Departmental proceedings cannot be initiated against a retired employee under the Rules of 1988, and the inquiry report must adhere to the rules and principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
resignation - departmental proceedings - Haryana Dairy Cooperative's Staff Service Rules, 1988 - Rule 47, Rule 48 - The court quashed the impugned orders and the inquiry report, and ordered the refund of the recovered amount with interest, citing that departmental proceedings could not be initiated against a retired employee under the Rules of 1988, and the inquiry report was found to be tainted and against the rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Milk Procurement Assistant, resigned and later faced departmental proceedings for causing financial loss to the department. The petitioner claimed that the resignation was accepted with effect from 2.11.2001, and the department initiated the inquiry and recovery of loss after a delay of 9 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that departmental proceedings could not be initiated against a retired employee under the Rules of 1988, and the inquiry report was tainted. The impugned orders and the inquiry report were quashed, and the recovered amount was ordered to be refunded with interest.
Issues: The issues included the legality of initiating departmental proceedings against a retired employee, the delay in taking action on the inquiry report, and the validity of the recovery of the financial loss from the petitioner's retiral benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that departmental proceedings could not be initiated against a retired employee under the Rules of 1988, and the inquiry report was found to be tainted and against the rules. The delay in taking action on the inquiry report was also considered, and the recovery of the financial loss from the petitioner's retiral benefits was deemed invalid.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned orders and the inquiry report, and ordered the refund of the recovered amount with interest to the petitioner.
KULDIP SINGH, J.
1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 20.11.2013 and 21.11.2013 (Annexure-P-11 and P-14 respectively) as well as order dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure-P-9), passed by respondent No. 3, ordering recovery of loss caused by the petitioner on the basis of inquiry report dated 31.12.2004 (Annexure-P-1). Also challenged in the present writ petition is to the order dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure-P-18), passed by the appellate authority, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. Mandamus is also sought for direction of release of all the terminal/retiral benefits with effect from 2.11.2001 when the resignation of the petitioner was accepted alongwih interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The petitioner also seeks the quashing of the inquiry report dated 31.12.2004 (Annexure-P-1).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Milk Procurement Assistant with effect from 12.3.1980. He submitted voluntary resignation on 27.10.2001 with effect from 2.11.2001. The petitioner thereafter despatched another letter dated 31.10.2001 withdrawing the resignation. The petitioner claims that the said letter was received in the office of respondent No. 3 on 1.11.2001 i.e. before the date the resignation was to become effective, but the same has been shown to have been received on 5.11.2001. The petitioner also claims that vide ante dated order, his resignation was accepted with effect from 2.11.2001. The petitioner filed a civil suit against the order accepting his resignation. His civil suit as well as appeal have been dismissed and now RSA No. 518 of 2006, titled as Baljeet Singh Versus Managing Director, Haryana Dairy Development Cooperative Federation, Chandigarh, is stated to be pending. The said controversy is not an issue before this Court. The petitioner claims that his retiral benefits were not released for about 12 years. He claims that after his resignation was accepted with effect from 2.11.2001, he was served with a chargesheet on 16.1.2002 for causing loss to respondent-department. The inquiry officer was appointed, who submitted the inquiry report on 31.12.2004 (Annexure-P-1) Thereafter, no action was taken on the said inquiry report. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 5.6.2013 (Annexure-P-5) upon respondents, claiming the release of leave encashment, gratuity, salary for October, 2001 and part of November, 2001, remitted amount to LIC, Karnal, pension payable under the EPF Pension Scheme alongwith interest. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP No. 17984 of 2013, titled as Baljeet Singh Versus Haryana Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited and others, before this Court, which was disposed of by Single Bench, vide order dated 19.8.2013 (Annexure-P-6), directing respondent No. 2 to decide the legal notice dated 5.6.2013 within a period of three months after receipt of certified copy of the order. It was thereafter that respondents issued a show cause notice dated 11.10.2013 (Annexure-P-8), intimating him that in the inquiry report submitted on 31.12.2004, he was held guilty of the charges mentioned in the show cause notice and that he has caused loss to the tune of Rs. 1,04,955.57 and why the said loss be not recovered from him ? Vide order of the same date i.e. 11.10.2013 (Annexure-P-9) and after withholding the said financial loss, the balance amount of gratuity was ordered to be released. Against the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted the reply dated 30.10.2013 (Annexure-P-10). Thereafter, in compliance with the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 17984 of 2013, the speaking order dated 20.11.2013 (Annexure-P-11) was passed, whereby the claim made in the legal notice dated 5.6.2013 was declined. Vide orders dated 21.11.2013 (Annexures-P-12 and P-13), passed separately, the sanction was grante
