The court established that chargesheets issued to a retired employee and recovery imposed after retirement were without jurisdiction. It also affirmed the entitlement of an employee to interest on delayed release of pensionary benefits.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) - In the present petition, the prayer of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner was working with the respondent-Federation and after retirement of her husband, no benefit has been extended either to him till he remained alive or after his death to the petitioner in respect of the service, which the late husband of the petitioner performed with the respondent-Federation from 31.07.1980 till 30.04.2012. Further prayer of the petitioner is that the order dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure P-10) be also quashed by which the respondents have imposed a recovery to the tune of Rs.6,44,890/- to be recovered from the retiral benefits admissible in respect of the service rendered by her late husband.

2. As per the averments made in the petition, husband of the petitioner joined the respondent-Federation on 31.07.1980. After performing the duties for a period of approximately 32 years, he retired from the post of Store Keeper on 30.04.2012 on attaining the age of superannuation. After the retirement, no pensionary benefit in respect of the service which the late husband of the petitioner rendered, were extended. It is the specific case of the petitioner that at the time of retirement, there were no disciplinary proceedings pending against the late husband of the petitioner, so as to give jurisdiction to the respondent to withhold the pensionary benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the respondents, after the retirement of husband of the petitioner, issued him first chargesheet on 24.07.2012 for causing loss of Rs.17,87,086/-, second chargesheet was issued on 15.01.2014 for causing loss of Rs.3,54,057/-. Third chargesheet was also issued to the late husband of the petitioner on 12.02.2015 for causing loss of Rs.5,31,656/- and keeping in view the issuance of the chargesheets to the late husband of the petitioner, though an amount of Rs.9,41,091/- towards retiral benefits was admissible but the same was withheld by the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though, after retirement of husband of the petitioner, three chargesheets were issued but during the pendency of those disciplinary proceedings, husband of the petitioner unfortunately died on 16.05.2015, hence, all the pending disciplinary proceedings became inconsequential but the respondents in totally illegal and arbitrary manner, continued those proceedings even after the death of the husband of the petitioner and also imposed a punishment of recovery of Rs.6,44,890/- by impugned order dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure P-10). The said order is under challenged in the present petition.

5. After notice of motion, the respondents have filed reply and they have justified their action saying that the late husband of the petitioner was not performing the duties as required under law and though, he had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2012 but keeping in view his conduct while in service, three chargesheets were issued to him after the retirement, which chargesheeets have been taken to the logical end and by the impugned order dated 21.09.2020, a recovery of Rs.6,44,890/- has been imposed. Learned counsel submits that remaining amount was sent to the petitioner but the same was not accepted and therefore, the claim of the petitioner in the present petition may kindly be rejected.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

7. The first question which arises in the present case is whether the respondent had any jurisdiction to withhold the pensionary benefits in respect of the service rendered by the late husband of the petitioner. It is a conceded position that on the date when the late husband of the petitioner retired i.e.30.04.2012, there was no proceeding pending against him. All the proceedings which were initiated by the respondents were started after his retirement. In the present case, the post o