Pension rights are vested and cannot be arbitrarily denied; disciplinary actions post-retirement must adhere to statutory limits prohibiting proceedings for incidents beyond four years.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner has been charge sheeted after his retirement for the charges of 2010-11, being in violation of law prescribed under Rule 2.2 (b), Note 2, Clause (b) proviso (i) and (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rule, Volume II. Further the petitioner has prayed for stay on the operation of the charge sheet during the pendency of this petition.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly, the facts of the case, as alleged, are that, the petitioner, joined the respondent department as Junior Engineer in 1991, was promoted to Sub Divisional Engineer in 2011 and to Divisional Engineer in 2017, and retired on 29.02.2024 after over 34 years of service upon superannuation. On 28.04.2025, Respondent No. 4 issued the impugned charge-sheet (Annexure P-1),over alleged events that took place 14 years ago during 2010–2011, alleging negligence in execution of Optimum Utilisation of Vacant Government Land (OUVGL) scheme project at Verka Milk Plant, Amritsar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been charged with charges/ incident which took place 14 years before the issuance of chargesheet dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-1), and after the superannuation of the petitioner as the petitioner retired on 29.02.2024 and thus in violation of Rule 2.2 (b), Note 2, Clause (b) proviso (i) and (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rule, Volume II. It is further contended that the work could not be completed due to shortage of funds and non-issuance of NOC by PSPCL and thus the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the loss incurred by the respondent. Further, leave encashment and gratuity have not been released on account of the charge sheet.

4. Learned Counsel for the State was unable to controvert to the factual position and implication of Rule 2.2 (b), Note 2, Clause (b) proviso (i) and (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rule, Volume II.

OBSERVATION and ANALYSIS

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that the after the retirement of the petitioner upon attaining the age of superannuation on 29.02.2024, the petitioner was charge sheeted on 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) for an alleged incident that took place 14 years ago in 2010 - 11. This Court finds it appropriate to study the relevant provision of the Rule 2.2 (b), Note 2, Clause (b) proviso (i) and (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rule, Volume II, which is reproduced for ready reference.

2.2 (b) The Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if, in a departmental or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of grave mis-conduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re- employment after retirement:

Provided that–

(1) Such departmental proceedings, if instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall after the final retirement of the officer, be deemed to be a proce