117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 28.01.2026 Mahabir Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Piyush Khanna, Addl.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate for respondents No.3 & 4.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

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 for quashing of charge sheet bearing No.28556 dated 08.12.2025 (Annexure P-5) and for issuance of directions to the respondents to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner from the date of entitlement i.e. 31.12.2023 along with interest @ 18% per annum. Further, for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the benefit of annual increment w.e.f. 01.07.2023 along with arrears of salary with interest @ 18%

per annum.

2. On 23.12.2025, the following order was passed:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that at the time of retirement of petitioner there was no pending inquiry or charge-sheet against the petitioner. The charge sheet was issued after retirement of petitioner and beyond the 4 year statutory period. As such, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and in violation of Regulation 10(2) of the Haryana Warehousing Corporation Pension Regulations, 1996. It is further contended that Regulation 10(2) supra mandates prior sanction and bars proceedings for events more than four years old. It is further contended that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in Anoop Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others 2020(1) SCT 89 and CWP-9606- 2022, titled as Khairati Lal Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 13.10.2025 (Annexure P-7).

On advance notice Mr. Piyush Khanna, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vikrant Pamboo, Advocate appear on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 and 3, 4 respectively and seek time to have complete instructions in the matter.

Adjourned to 28.01.2026.

In the meantime, the operation of the charge-sheet dated

08.12.2025 (Annexure P-5) shall remain in abeyance till the next date of hearing.”

3. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 is not in a position to controvert the fact that at the time of the retirement of the petitioner, there was no pending inquiry or charge sheet pending against the petitioner.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the charge sheet in question was issued after retirement of the petitioner. Further, the alleged misconduct occurred more than four years prior to the date of retirement. As such, it is beyond the statutory period of four years. The issue regarding the continuation of departmental proceedings after the superannuation of employees is no longer res integra.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Kadirkhan Ahmedkhan Pathan Vs. The Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation and others’ 2026 INSC

16, has observed the following:-

“17. Rule 27 of the 1982 Pension Rules -

27. Right of Government to withhold or withdraw pension (1) Government may, by order in writing, withhold or withdraw a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period, and also order the recovery from such pension, the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement:

Provided that the Maharashtra Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed in respect of officers holding posts within their purview:

Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of remaining pension shall not be reduced bel