Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1968

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Deepak Sibal, J.
Raj Pal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-5842-2022
Decided On : 07-12-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr.B.S.Rana, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Nayandeep Rana, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr.Tapan Kumar Yadav, DAG, Haryana, for the Respondent

The central legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation of departmental proceedings against a retired employee for events occurring more than four years prior to the initiation of the proceedings is barred under Rule 12.2(b) read with Rule 12(5)(a) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016.

Headnote:
Retirement - Departmental Inquiry - Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 - Rule 12.2(b) - [Retirement, Departmental Inquiry, Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016] - The court discussed the relevant provisions of Rule 12.2(b) and 12(5)(a) of the Rules, highlighting the complete embargo on the initiation of departmental proceedings against a retired employee in respect of events which may have taken place more than four years prior to the initiation of the departmental proceedings. The court emphasized the rationale behind the rules, emphasizing the retiree's right to live in peace after the statutory period of four years of retirement and the difficulty for a retiree to effectively defend himself due to fading memory and limited access to relevant records and colleagues. The court referred to precedents where similar rules were applied to quash departmental proceedings against retired employees, ultimately leading to the quashing of the impugned departmental proceedings against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a retired Inspector from Haryana Police, sought quashing of a departmental inquiry initiated against him for alleged misconduct during the years 1986-88, based on the ground that the initiation of departmental proceedings after his retirement was barred under Rule 12.2(b) read with Rule 12(5)(a) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned departmental proceedings against the petitioner, initiated after his retirement, were barred under Rule 12.2(b) read with Rule 12(5)(a) of the Rules, as the alleged misconduct occurred more than four years prior to the initiation of the proceedings, and therefore quashed the departmental proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the initiation of departmental proceedings against the petitioner, a retired employee, for alleged misconduct during the years 1986-88 was permissible under Rule 12.2(b) read with Rule 12(5)(a) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the initiation of departmental proceedings against a retired employee for events occurring more than four years prior to the initiation of the proceedings was barred under Rule 12.2(b) read with Rule 12(5)(a) of the Rules, emphasizing the retiree's right to live in peace and the practical difficulties in defending oneself after retirement.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned departmental proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Sibal, J. - Through the present petition the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 05.10.2021 through which under Rule 12.2(b) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 (for short, the Rules) a regular departmental inquiry has been ordered to be held against him on the ground that between the years 1986-88, while he was posted as an Inspector in the Haryana Police at Karnal, he had also passed his LLB course from Rajasthan and therefore could not have been present at two places at the same time.

2. The facts, in brief, which are required to be noticed for adjudicating upon the instant petition are that on 15.11.1981 the petitioner was recruited as a Constable in the Haryana Police. Thereafter he earned promotions to the posts of Head Constable, Assistant Sub Inspector, Sub Inspector and in the year 2009 was promoted as an Inspector from which post he superannuated on 30.06.2019. After attaining the age of superannuation he was granted one year's extension in service which came to an end on 30.06.2020. Thereafter, on 05.08.2021 the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Haryana accorded necessary permission to initiate a departmental inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 12.2(b) of the Rules on the basis whereof the Superintendent of Police, Commando (H) Newal, Karnal passed an order dated 05.10.2021 through which the petitioner was informed that a regular departmental inquiry had been ordered against him. Alongwith such order a charge-sheet was also served upon the petitioner as per which the alleged misconduct by him was that between the years 1986-88, while he was posted at Karnal, he had undergone his LLB course from Nehru Memorial Law College, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan and Mehrisi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer, Rajasthan and since he could not have been present at both the places at the same time he had fudged the record at either place. The petitioner represented to the inquiry officer informing him about the legal bar under Rule 12.2(b) read with Rule 12(5)(a) of the Rules as per which after the petitioner had retired from service he could not be departmentally proceeded against for a misconduct which had taken place beyond four years from the date of institution of the departmental proceedings. When the petitioner did not receive any response to his afore representation and the respondents intended to continue with the inquiry proceedings, he knocked the doors of this Court through the instant petition for the aforesaid relief.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2019 and that even the extension of his service for one year ended on 30.06.2020 and since after his retirement he was sought to be departmentally proceeded against for an alleged misconduct which took place between the years 1986-88 which was well beyond four years from the date of the petitioner's retirement, the impugned departmental proceedings were barred under Rule 12.2(b) read with Rule 12(5)(a) of the Rules.

4. In support of the afore contention reliance was placed on the following judgments: -

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Patiala and others vs. Atma Singh Grewal (2014) 13 SCC 666;

2. Baldhir Singh vs. State of Punjab and others 2008 (4) SCT 652;

3. Sub Inspector Puran Chand (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab and others 2000(3) SCT 515; and

4. L.B.Gupta vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala 2002 (1) SCT 285.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that after the petitioner had superannuated he was given one year's extension in service and during this period a complaint was received against the petitioner that between the years 1986-88, while he was posted at Karnal, he had also undergone the LLB course from Rajasthan and since he could not be present at two places at the same time he had apparently wrongly shown himself present at either place. On the basis of the said complaint a discreet inquiry was held which went against t