224 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3859-2021 (O&M)

Decided on: 27.01.2026 Hari Om .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Mohan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the chargesheet dated 20.08.2010 (Annexure P-1), Note of Dissent dated Nil (Annexure P-4), notice dated 26.06.2012 issued under Rule 19.2(g) of Hafed Common Cadre Rules, 1988 (for short ‘Rules of 1988’) (Annexure P-3), report of Standing Committee dated 19.12.2013 (Annexure P-6), order dated 20.02.2014 (Annexure P-7), imposing recovery of Rs.1,90,914/- and the order dated 23.12.2020 (Annexure P-10) passed by the respondent-Federation in the appeal filed by the petitioner, whereby the order dated 20.02.2014 (Annexure P-7) was upheld and further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release/refund the amount of Rs.1,90,914/- and other dues along with interest @18% per annum, from the date of his retirement till its actual realization.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner was appointed as Cotton Purchase Assistant in the respondent- Federation in November, 1980 and he superannuated on 31.12.2011 after rendering 31 years of satisfactory service. The respondents issued a chargesheet on 20.08.2010 under Rule 19 of the Rules of 1988. The petitioner filed a detailed reply and explained the charges as false. The Inquiry Officer held the petitioner liable for recovery of Rs.66,419/- for charge No.1 (rice loss) and Rs.24,980/- for charge No.2 (wheat loss) totalling Rs.91,399/-. Respondent No.2-Managing Director, HAFED did not agree with the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer and recorded his dissent and the recovery of Rs.1,90,914/- was ordered. The order of punishment was passed on 20.02.2014 (Annexure P-7) after retirement of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the issue as to whether the departmental proceedings, even if, initiated against an employee during service and continued after retirement as gone into the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2003 (6) SCC 545, wherein it has been authoritatively held that in the absence of any specific Rule to the effect that once an employee is permitted to retire, the proceedings cannot continue. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.C. Jain Vs. Managing Director, Haryana State Federation of Consumers Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. and another (CWP No.15247 of 2011), decided on 22.05.2013.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Federation opposes the prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner, for the first time, has taken this ground in the present writ petition, whereas he had filed a civil suit claiming his retiral dues in the year 2012. Further, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal against the order of punishment, which has been upheld and the appeal filed by him has been dismissed. As such, by taking a hyper-technical view, the petitioner cannot be allowed to go scot-free for the loss suffered by the respondent-Federation. Once an inquiry was initiated prior to the retirement of an employee, it is required to be taken to its logical end.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record of the case with their able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner retired on 31.12.2011, whereas the punishment order (Annexure P-7) was passed on 20.02.2014, after his retirement. Relevant provisions of the Rules of

1988 are reproduced as under: -

“4. Definition:

xx