Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 1210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Limber Kumar Sandhir - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents - Respondent
C.W.P. No.21562 of 2008(O&M)
Decided On : 04-07-2023
Mr. R.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.K.Kapoor, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
The re-inquiry lacked justification and was without jurisdiction, as there was no provision for re-inquiry after charges had been dropped by the competent authority in a detailed order.
Headnote:
departmental inquiry - pension benefits - Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1970 - Rule 9
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ to quash orders and calculate/release pensionary benefits. The court considered the permissibility of holding a departmental inquiry after closing proceedings based on the inquiry report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the re-inquiry lacked justification and was without jurisdiction, setting aside the impugned orders and directing recalculation and release of pensionary benefits. The court also directed the competent authority to decide the petitioner's claim for benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme.
Issues: Permissibility of holding a departmental inquiry after closing proceedings based on the inquiry report.
Ratio Decidendi: The re-inquiry lacked justification and was without jurisdiction, as there was no provision for re-inquiry after charges had been dropped by the competent authority in a detailed order.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, impugned orders were set aside, and the petitioner's pensionary benefits were directed to be recalculated and released. The competent authority was also directed to decide the petitioner's claim for benefits under the Assured Career Progression Scheme.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. With the consent of the learned counsels representing the parties, both the writ petitions shall stand disposed of by a common order
2. While praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders passed on 28.07.2008 and 03.08.2008, the petitioner, in substance, prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to calculate and release his pensionary benefits in accordance with his seniority at the time of his retirement along with 10% interest.
3. The question which arises for consideration is “Whether it is permissible to hold a departmental inquiry after the competent officer has closed the departmental proceedings based on the inquiry report?”
4. The relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed in order to grasp the controversy involved in the case.
A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 15.12.2004. On filing of the reply by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority appointed the Joint Controller (Treasury & Accounts) as the Inquiry Officer. The gravamen of the charge against the petitioner is that, after he was transferred to Banga on 12.03.1999, which became his headquarters, he was not entitled to any travel allowance for coming and going to Banga, but only to transfer travel allowance. The Inquiry Officer in its detailed report dated 14.06.2005 reported that the charges against the petitioner are not proved. On 28.10.2005 the Special Secretary Finance and Director (Treasury and accounts), Department of Finance, Punjab, the punishing authority took a conscious decision to drop the charges against the petitioner. After almost two years on the basis of a complaint received from Sh. Inderpal Singh, the son of respondent no.4, the Principal Secretary directed the Additional Director, Audit Organization (Revenue), Punjab, to re-inquire the charges levelled against the petitioner. On receipt of the report dated 29.11.2007, the petitioner was issued show cause notice giving opportunity to the petitioner to file reply. While filing of the reply, the petitioner explained that Sh. Inderpal Singh is the son of respondent no.4 with whom he has long standing enmity. Despite detailed reply, the Principal Secretary vide order dated 28.07.2008 ordered the following punishments:-
(1) The entire amount drawn on account of wrong TA and the conveyance allowance by producing wrong handicap certificate be recovered from the dates of drawals along with interest @ 10% from Shri Limber Kumar Sandhir, Junior Assistant.
(2) Shri Limber Kumar Sandhir, Junior Assistant be reverted to the post of Clerk with immediate effect and placed at the minimum of the scale of the clerk.”
5. On the basis of the order, the District Treasury Officer vide office order dated 03.10.2008 has debited the 'Head 2071-Pension' and other retiral benefits to the extent of Rs.1,21,160/-. Challenging the correctness of the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed.
6. This Bench has heard the learned counsels representing the parties at length and perused the synopsis filed by them along with the paper book.
7. The learned counsel representing the petitioner has made elaborate submissions, however, for the purpose of the decision of the present case, it is not necessary to discuss all the contentions.
8. The order passed on 04.06.2007 is (Annexure R-12) and is at page 177 of the paper book. It is evident that the Principal Secretary noticed that vide order dated 28.10.2005, the charges issued to the petitioner were dropped after accepting the inquiry report. The Principal Secretary has failed to record any reason whatsoever to justify the order to re-inquire the charges levelled against the petitioner. The operative part of the order reads as under:-
“Whereas one Shri Inderpal Singh, resident of # 173, New Mehar Singh Colony, Patiala, represented to the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Finance, wherein he complained of false T.A claim by Shri Limber Kumar Sandhir, Jun
