IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

255 CWP-15153-2025 Date of Decision: September 23, 2025 Osaf Khan .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Arun Singla, AAG, Haryana.

****

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or directions especially in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release retiral benefits accrued to the petitioner, which had been illegally withheld despite passing of sanction order dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner retired from service on 31.05.2024 as a Peon and his retiral dues have not been paid till date. He relies upon the sanction letter dated 19.02.2025(Annexure P-1) and warning letter dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure P-2) to submit that the retiral dues have been withheld from him for no rhyme or reason. He further submits that charge sheet dated 25.07.2022 was issued against the petitioner. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted and a report dated 18.07.2023 was submitted, pursuant to which the charge sheet was ordered to be consigned to the record room and only a warning was issued against him which was duly communicated on 03.02.2025. Furthermore, no dues were pending against the petitioner as on his retirement date i.e. 31.05.2024, as discernible from clearance letter (Annexure P-4). The petitioner moved a representation (Annexure P-5) before respondent-Bank for release of his retiral dues, but the same remained unheeded.

3. It transpires that the notice of motion was issued on 29.05.2025 and the learned State counsel had accepted the notice of behalf of respondent No.1. However, service upon respondents No.2 and 3 still remains pending.

4. Per contra learned State counsel opposes the prayer made by the petitioner and submits that he was involved in serious misconduct as he had played fraud on the respondent-Bank by showing fake no dues certificate. However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner was let go with a warning in this regard.

5. Having heard the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it transpires that at the time of retirement of petitioner, no charge-sheet or disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. Moreover, he had already been sanctioned the release of his retiral dues as indicated by sanctioned order dated 19.02.2025 (Annexure P-1).

6. It is no longer res integra that in case the disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against an employee on the date of his retirement, the employer would be well within its right to withhold the retiral benefits. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman’ 1991 (3) SCT 317 has authoritatively laid down that the pending proceedings would mean that charge sheet is served in departmental proceedings or the charges have been framed in criminal proceedings by the competent authority on or before the date of retirement of an employee. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

"16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a charge sheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the seal