IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 30.01.2026 NEK SINGH ...... Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA ***

Present :- Mr. V. K. Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Neha Sonawane, DAG, Punjab.

***

Deepinder Singh Nalwa, J. (Oral)

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the charge-sheets dated 08.07.2020 (Annexure P-2) and 21.07.2020 (Annexure P-3) issued to the petitioner after his retirement. It has also been prayed for a direction to the respondents to decide the suspension period of the petitioner from 25.07.2019 to 03.10.2019 and to grant him annual increment w.e.f. 01.01.2020. Further to release the retiral benefits along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, the charge sheets dated 08.07.2020 (Annexure P-2) and 21.07.2020 (Annexure P-3) have already been decided by the department and appropriate punishments have been imposed vide order dated 09.09.2023 and 12.03.2024. At this stage, he submits that he is confining his arguments only to the extent of grant of interest on delayed payment of the retiral benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had retired on 31.05.2020 and at the time of retirement there was no departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings pending, as such, there was no justification in withholding the retiral benefits of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-State submits that the petitioner was not entitled for the release of retiral benefits at the time of retirement due to pendency of two charge sheets dated 08.07.2020 (Annexure P-2) and 21.07.2020 (Annexure P-3) issued to the petitioner.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the only issue involved in the present case is whether the respondent- department could have withheld the retiral benefits of the petitioner, despite of the fact that on the date of retirement, there were no departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, as no departmental proceedings were pending against the petitioner at the time of retirement, as such, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner could not have been withheld by the respondents. No rules have been brought to the notice of this Court by the respondent-State to show that even if, no departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings are initiated/pending at the time of retirement of employee, the department has the power to withhold the retiral benefits.

Learned counsel for the respondents has also failed to bring to the notice of this Court any rule which empowers the department to withhold retiral benefits even in cases where departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings are merely contemplated.

6. A similar issue came up for consideration before the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.12296 of 2018 titled as 'Sunil Kumar Khosla Vs. State of Punjab and others', decided on 04.04.2022, wherein it was held that once no charge sheet is pending at the time of retirement, the department has no jurisdiction to withhold the retiral benefits of an employee. The relevant extract of the judgment is as under:-

“6. The question of law as to whether, under which circumstances, the pensionary benefits of the employee can be withheld, is settled. As per the settled principle of law in case any departmental proceedings or criminal proceedings pending at the time of the retirement, only in that circumstances there vest a jurisdiction with the respondents to withhold the leave encashment as well as gratuity. The provisional pension and the provident fund cannot be withheld by the respondents under any circumstances.

7. In the present case, though the petitioner retired on attaining t