Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Swaran Lal Kansal - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
Haryana State Federation of Consumers` Co-operative Wholesale Stores Limited & Anr. - Respondents - Respondent
CWP No.2137 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-02-2023
recovery - disciplinary proceedings - Staff Service Rules, 1975 - CWP No.8825 of 2015, Jogi Ram vs. Hry. State Fed. of Consumers Co-op Wholesale Stores Ltd. & Anr., CWP No.1873 of 2014, Ranbir Singh Dahiya vs. Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores (CONFED) and Anr., CWP No.31311 of 2018, S.C. Jain vs. Managing Director, The Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Federation and another, Chandra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and another, (2003) 6 SCC 545, S.S. Arya vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Panchkula and others, 2009(8) SLR 53 - The court discussed the applicability of Staff Service Rules, 1975 and the precedent cases to conclude that disciplinary proceedings and recovery cannot be initiated or continued against a retired employee after retirement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retired General Manager, challenged the recovery of amounts from his retiral dues based on disciplinary proceedings initiated after his retirement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings and recovery initiated against the petitioner after his retirement were not in accordance with the Staff Service Rules, 1975 and relevant legal precedents.
Issues: The core issue was whether disciplinary proceedings could be initiated against the petitioner after his retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Staff Service Rules, 1975 and precedent cases to establish that disciplinary proceedings and recovery cannot be initiated or continued against a retired employee after retirement.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders, allowed the petition, and directed the release of the petitioner's dues with interest.
RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.07.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 and order dated 07.07.2014 and order dated 08.06.2017 passed by the respondent No.2 vide which appeal of the petitioner has been rejected being illegal and against the Rules and the petitioner laid challenge to the order dated 16.08.2017 vide which recovery has been effected from the retiral dues of the petitioner by means of punishment which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction as the respondents have no power to order recovery after the retirement of the petitioner and the impugned orders of recovery are bad in law.
2. The petitioner was appointed as General Manager in the respondent-Federation in the year 1980 and had superannuated from the said post w.e.f. 30.04.2012 subject to outcome of pending disciplinary proceeding arising out chargesheet dated 27.06.2008 and 04.08.2011.
3. The petitioner submitted his reply to the chargesheet that the case of Khem Chand s/o Sh. Bailakh Ram transporter was pleaded by the Advocate in District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar and all the circumstances were brought to the notice of the Advocate as required. The charge alleged against the petitioner in respect of non-producing the documents before the District Consumer Forum was not true and the petitioner was not at fault for the decision rendered by the District Consumer Forum, Yamuna Nagar. Regarding note given on 16.11.2007 on the file of Legal Branch, the petitioner had signed the note as per guidelines of the Business Manager G.M. Legal Sh. V.K. Gupta. The note was signed by the petitioner in good faith without reading the same. Sh. V.K. Gupta told the petitioner that there is no weight in the case and it was useless to file the same with the State Commission Redressal Forum and the petitioner was advised to sign the note which was prepared by him so that the approval for not filing the case may get through from the Managing Director.
4. An appeal against the decision of the Consumer Forum dated 15.10.2007 was filed by the respondents before the State Consumer Commission as well as National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, however decision of the Consumer Forum was upheld by the Appellate Forum and further cost(s) of Rs.10,000/- was imposed upon the Federation. The respondent-Federation decided to recover the same from the petitioner despite the fact that the petitioner had rightly advised the respondent-Federation that there was no good ground to file the appeal. An Enquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 01.08.2008, who conducted the enquiry and proved the charges of negligence against the petitioner and subsequently show cause notice dated 19.06.2012 was given to the petitioner proposing to impose the punishment of Recovery of Rs.1,15,300/- which was duly replied by the petitioner. However the respondent No.1 did not appreciate the contention raised therein and vide the impugned order dated 17.07.2014, recovery of Rs.65,300/- was ordered from the retiral dues.
5. Another chargesheet dated 04.08.2011 was issued to the petitioner for causing losses to the respondent-Federation. The petitioner replied the same by submitting that during 03.03.2010 to 02.05.2010, he was on earned leave and the stock for the crop year 2010-2011 was purchased by Sh. Anil Malik, District Manager and prior to him Sh. S.K. Dhanewal, D.M. was having the additional charge and the petitioner joined the duty on 03.05.2010. An Enquiry Officer was appointed by the respondent No.1 and during the course of enquiry proceedings, the petitioner specifically made a statement denying the charges and rebutting the allegations on 12.03.2012. However, the Enquiry Officer proved the charges against the petitioner and submitted the enquiry report to the respondent No.1. The petitioner also filed detailed
Disciplinary proceedings and recovery cannot be initiated or continued against a retired employee after retirement as per the Staff Service Rules, 1975 and relevant legal precedents.
There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from....
There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the appellant and nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that recovery from retiral dues after retirement is impermissible in certain situations, and the protection of pension and gratuity rights of re....
Amendments to regulations cannot apply retrospectively to actions taken before their enactment, but an employee's undertaking may allow for recovery in certain circumstances.
The recovery order and withholding of retiral dues without proper procedure and opportunity for the petitioner to be heard were illegal and arbitrary, and the petitioner was entitled to interest on t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the recovery of dues from a retired employee and the continuation of a departmental enquiry after retirement must be in accordance with the ap....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
