The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation imposed by Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II on initiating departmental proceedings for events occurring more than four years prior to retirement.

Judgment

Mr. Vikas Bahl, J.

This order will dispose of the above-said four writ petitions as common questions of facts and issues of law arise in the said writ petitions.

2. Separate replies filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 in each of the cases are taken on record. Copies thereof have been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. Primary prayer in the said four writ petitions is for setting aside the speaking orders passed by respondent No.1 and also the inquiry proceedings and the charge-sheets issued by respondent No.1, on the ground of the same being barred under Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II (hereinafter referred as “the Rules”), inasmuch as, the same have been issued after retirement of the petitioners, for an event which had taken place more than four years prior to the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings i.e. issuance of charge-sheet.

4. On 10.01.2024, this Court was pleased to pass similar orders in the above-said writ petitions. The order passed in CWP-341-2024 is reproduced herein-below: -

“Inter alia, contends that the petitioner has already retired prior to the issuance of the charge-sheet and the alleged incident as stated in the charge-sheet is also four years prior to the date on which the charge-sheet has been issued and thus, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are barred under Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II. It is stated that the said plea has been wrongly rejected in the impugned order by observing that the petitioner had retired subsequently i.e. on 30.11.2020 and the financial loss caused continued till superannuation and even till today. It is argued that the charges are to be seen on the basis of the charge-sheet in which the the specific period has been mentioned and indisputably, the charge-sheet had been issued after a period of more than four years after the said period. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Patiala and others Vs. Atma Singh Grewal, reported as 2014(13) SCC 666.

Notice of motion for 13.02.2024.

To be taken up at 1.45 PM.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Ferry Sofat, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, appears & accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-State and seeks time to file reply.

Reply, if any, be filed with the Registry, on or before the next date of hearing with an advance copy to learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned State counsel is directed to get instructions in the matter.

Further proceedings in the departmental proceedings are stayed till the next date of hearing.”

5. The undisputed facts in the present writ petitions are that the petitioners in all the writ petitions had retired prior to the issuance of the charge-sheets and the alleged incidents as stated in the charge-sheets had occurred more than four years prior to the date on which the chargesheets had been issued. The said facts stand further fortified from the chart given herein below, the dates mentioned in which have not been disputed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Rule 2.2(b) of the Rules, which is admittedly applicable in the present cases, is reproduced herein below: -

“Rule