IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 23.09.2025 Pronounced on: 09.10.2025 Narain Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Amit Sharma (Kanav), Advocate and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Sonak, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. T.V.S. Lehal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

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 the impugned order dated 19.03.2020 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.3. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is sought, directing the respondents to release the petitioner's retiral dues i.e. gratuity and leave encashment, along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its accrual till its actual realization.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2018. The petitioner along with one Sham Singh Saini Branch Incharge was falsely implicated in FIR No.93 dated 13.10.2010 under section 409/34 of the IPC at police station Gurdaspur. The petitioner was also charge-sheeted on the same set of facts. The inquiry officer submitted its report and in consequence thereof a punishment order was passed on 29.03.2016 against the petitioner by stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect along with recovery of loss of Rs.37,15,425/- in equal proportion from the petitioner and his senior Sham Singh. Petitioner was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Gurdaspur on 16.08.2016. The learned Sessions Judge on 07.06.2018 convicted the petitioner on an appeal preferred by the respondent and a revision petition is before this court against the judgment of the appellate court. The respondent had also filed an arbitration case for recovery of Rs.8,66,031/- which was decided in favour of the petitioner and upheld by the Joint Registrar Co- operative Society on 12.12.2017. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner had concluded much prior to his retirement. Further he submits that the MARKFED Common Cadre Rules, 1990 (Annexure P- 1), which statutorily govern the petitioner's service conditions, contain no provision for withholding gratuity post-retirement or for continuing disciplinary proceedings after superannuation. Consequently, the impugned order withholding retiral benefits on the grounds of a pending criminal revision and recovery proceedings is devoid of any legal sanction and violates the petitioner's right to property under Article 300-

A of the Constitution.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that the gratuity has been rightly withheld due to the petitioner's conviction in a criminal case (the revision of which is pending before this Court) and the outstanding recovery of Rs.28,49,394/- and he refers to the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.3 and submits that the impugned order of recovery is totally justified.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

5. It transpires that at the time when petitioner retired on 30.04.2018, no disciplinary proceedings or charge-sheet were pending against him as the disciplinary proceedings had already concluded on 29.03.2016 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner was awarded punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect along with a recovery of loss.

6. Rule 4.6 of the MARKFED Common Cadre Rules, 1990 (hereinafter Rules of 1990) (Annexure P-1) which deals with gratuity provides as under:-

"4.6 On one’s retirement, under Rule 2.21 of these Rules or death an employee shall be granted gratuity as per rules/instructions in force and amended from time to time applicable to Punjab Govt. employees."

7. The impugned order (Annexure P-8) dated 19.03.2020 was passed against the petitioner after his retirement