An employer cannot initiate disciplinary actions against an employee after the employment relationship is severed by dismissal unless explicitly provided in service rules.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash three charge sheets dated 27.04.2017 (Annexure P-5), dated 27.04.2017 (Annexure P-6), and dated 17.07.2017 (Annexure P-7), along with all consequent departmental enquiry proceedings. A further direction is sought to restrain the respondents from continuing with the said proceedings.

2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the petitioner, while serving as an Inspector Grade-2, was convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge, Moga, on 14.10.2013 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Based on this conviction, the respondent-Corporation passed an order dated 31.10.2013 (Annexure P-1) imposing upon the petitioner the penalty of dismissal from service and thus terminating his service. Subsequently, the Corporation filed civil suits in 2016 for recovery of alleged financial losses. These suits were later on withdrawn against other co-accused employees with a stated intention to initiate departmental action against them. However, the suits were not withdrawn against the petitioner. Instead, the impugned charge sheets (Annexures P-5 to P-7) were issued to the petitioner in April and July of 2017, nearly four years after his dismissal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submitted that the impugned charge sheets dated 27.04.2017 and 17.07.2017 are legally unsustainable and void ab initio. The foundational premise for this challenge is that the relationship of master and servant between the Petitioner and the Respondent-Corporation was conclusively severed upon his dismissal from service vide order dated 31.10.2013. It was further submitted that the disciplinary jurisdiction under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 is predicated on the existence of a subsisting employment relationship, and the penalties enumerated under Rule 5 of the said Rules can only be imposed upon a serving government employee. Once this relationship is terminated by an order of dismissal, the authority to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings ceases to exist. It was further argued that the provision for post-retirement enquiry under Rule 2.2(b) of the PUNJAB CIVIL SERVICES RULES , Volume II, which permits the withholding or withdrawal of pension, is wholly inapplicable to the petitioner's case as the employees of the respondent-Corporation are not governed by any pension scheme, thereby removing the only statutory basis upon which proceedings against a former employee could be legally sustained.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner's challenge is misconceived and premature that the very basis of the petitioner's argument, the finality of the dismissal order is undermined by the fact that the petitioner himself has challenged the validity of the dismissal order dated 31.10.2013 in a civil suit which is pending adjudication. Consequently, the order of dismissal is sub judice and its legality is under judicial scrutiny. It is further argued that the subsequent charge sheets pertain to distinct acts of misconduct, namely acts of omission and commission committed during the petitioner's service which resulted in pecuniary loss to the Corporation, for which the department is entitled to initiate a separate disciplinary action. He further contends that the respondents were justified in initiating the departmental action