Timely initiation and conclusion of disciplinary proceedings are critical; excessive delays can vitiate the proceedings and infringe on the rights of the employee.

JUDGMENT :

Harpreet Singh Brar, J.

Through the instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to release all the retiral benefits including gratuity, leave encashment, over draft expenses borne by the petitioner and all the other consequential benefits with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, infer alia, contends that the petitioner retired as Store Keeper-cum-Mandi Inspector from the respondent-Corporation on 31.12.2006 as is evident from Annexure P-2. A charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 21.01.2009 (Annexure P-3) after the retirement of the petitioner for shortage of wheat stock during the crop year 2002-03 on the allegations that the petitioner has failed to maintain the health of the entire wheat stock and as such, the respondent-Corporation has suffered the loss of Rs.67,96,209/- only. The inquiry officer concluded the inquiry and gave its findings by holding that the charge of loss as quantified in the charge sheet to the extent of Rs.67 lakh is not proved against the petitioner and the charge against the petitioner stands partly proved and the loss needs to be re-verified and conveyed. On the same set of allegations and on same set of facts, the respondent-Corporation has filed the civil suit for recovery which was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 08.11.2013 and further the appeal filed by the respondent-Corporation was also dismissed as discernible from Annexure P-6 i.e. the judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa on 07.12.2017. Similarly, vigilance case bearing No.667 dated 09.09.2008 registered against the petitioner at Police Station City Sirsa, District Sirsa under Sections 409 , 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 BMA and Section 3 of Prevention of Corruption Act on the identical facts and circumstances was thoroughly investigated and ultimately, the cancellation report was submitted before the concerned Court on 06.10.2010 (Annexure P-5). As such, the petitioner has earned clean chit from the Vigilance Department and also the recovery suit on the same set of allegations filed by the respondent Corporation has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further assails the act and conduct of the respondent Corporation on the ground that issuance of charge sheet is violative of Rule 2.2 (b) of Civil Services Rules, Volume —II as the charge sheet was issued after retirement of the petitioner on 21.01.2009 pertaining to the misconduct of the year 2002-03. As such, the impugned action of the respondent-Corporation in initiating disciplinary proceedings after retirement is not admissible and he relies upon the judgment in State of Bihar and others vs. Mohd. Idris Ansari 1995(3) SCR 754 but the respondent-Corporation has not challenged the judgment rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa by filing a regular second appeal before this Court and as such, the findings to the extent of exonerating the petitioner from any liability on the civil side has attained finality.

4. Per contra, Mr. Dwivedi submits that the punishing authority after serving the petitioner with a show cause, afforded him an opportunity of hearing and after recording dissent, has imposed punishment of recovery of Rs.67,96,209/- vide order dated 09.05.2022. The petitioner has not challenged order dated 09.05.2022.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner superannuated on 31.12.2006. However, at the time of his retirement, neither any charge sheet