204 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 30.01.2026 RAJ KUMAR BISHNOI ....Petitioner Versus HARYANA STATE FEDERATION OF CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE WHOLESALE STORES LTD. AND ANR.

....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for respondents.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR , J (Oral):

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing order dated 07.04.2017 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Disciplinary Authority/Respondent No.2, whereby a sum of Rs.14,57,167/- has been wrongly and illegally ordered to be recovered from the petitioner allegedly on the alleged ground that the petitioner had wrongly drawn salary for the period from 01.08.2013 to 23.07.2015 as well as the order dated 20.05.2019 (Annexure P-10) passed by Appellate Authority/Respondent No.3 with a further prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent to release the entire retiral benefits of the petitioner for the service rendered by him from February 1982 to July 2015 along with interest @ 18%.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia, contends that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has continued to work beyond attaining the age of 58 years i.e. the age of his superannuation, and that the salary paid to him up to the date of his retirement on 24.07.2015 is ordered to be recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to the preliminary enquiry and submits that the Enquiry Officer recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner was not a beneficiary of any manipulation and had no role in making date of birth entry the seniority list. The Enquiry Officer fixed responsibility upon those officials who were entrusted with the duty of maintaining and circulating the seniority list. However, it was concluded that the petitioner has not informed the Department that his date of birth is 10.07.1955 and that he was due to retire in the year 2013. Thereafter, the punishing authority, vide the impugned order dated 07.04.2017, ordered recovery of a sum of Rs.14,57,167/- from the petitioner.

2.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that admittedly Departmental proceedings were not conducted, following the drill of the procedure prescribed under the Staff Service Rules, 1975 of the Haryana State Federation of Consumer Cooperative Societies. Admittedly, no charge-sheet was ever served upon the petitioner in terms of Rule 60. Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to Rule 16, which provides that in the interest of administrative work of the respondents-Federation, an employee may be granted extension of two years beyond the age of 58 years. At the relevant time, there was acute shortage of staff and the petitioner was also given additional charge of the adjoining District in the interest of administration, for which no extra remuneration was paid as is evident from Annexures P-2 and P-3.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents-Federation submits that the complicity of the petitioner is writ large. The petitioner was well aware of the fact that his date of birth is 10.07.1955 and yet he continued to work beyond the age of superannuation and received financial benefits to which he was not entitled. Therefore, he is liable to be punished in terms of the recommendation made by the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel for respondents-Federation submits that the petitioner is a well-educated person and was working on post of Accountant, Grade-A. One of the duties of a Grade-A Accountant is to prepare salary statements of employees as well as no dues certificates of retiring employees in time. Therefore, it is unbelievable to contend that he was unaware of his date of retirement, especially