IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 17.11.2025 Jasbir Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - Mr. Pawan Kumar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate, and Ms. Vidushi Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Satnampreet Singh, DAG, Punjab.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of order dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure P-10), passed by respondent No.1 vide which a cut of 10% for five years has been imposed in the pension of the petitioner; for quashing of charge-sheet dated 28.04.2022 (Annexure P-3), issued by respondent No.1 and all subsequent proceedings including enquiry report.

2. Brief facts, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner retired from service of the respondent(s)-department as an Audit Inspector on attaining the age of 60 years on 31.03.2016. Though the age of retirement in the State of Punjab was 58 years, however, considering the service record of the petitioner he was given an extension for a period of two years i.e. 31.03.2014 to 31.03.2016. After retirement, petitioner was given all the pensionary benefits, including regular pension from the date of his retirement. However, petitioner was issued memo dated 02.05.2022 along with charge-sheet dated 28.04.2022 by respondent No.1 under Rule 2.2 (b) read with Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. The charges levelled in the chargesheet against the petitioner were that while working as an Audit Inspector, he conducted the audit of Kajla Co-operative Agricultural Multipurpose Cooperative Society Ltd. for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15 in a wrongful manner and that during the aforesaid period of audit in the record of said Society, petitioner had failed to examine fixed deposit receipts. Petitioner submitted his reply to respondent No.1 giving all the details and requested that since chargesheet has been issued after more than four years of his retirement, therefore, under Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rule, Volume II, the same is barred by time. It is further the case of the petitioner that without considering the reply of the petitioner, an inquiry officer was appointed and without supplying the relevant documents, petitioner was asked to submit reply to the charge-sheet by the inquiry officer. Petitioner submitted his reply to charge-sheet to inquiry officer vide reply dated 19.08.2023 and also gave answers to the questionnaire dated 23.08.2023. Thereafter, the inquiry officer submitted his report. The petitioner after receiving the report, submitted his reply dated 06.12.2023 to the competent authority/respondent No.1 and he was called for personal hearing on 14.05.2024. Thereafter, respondent No.1 passed impugned order dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure P-10) imposing a 10% cut upon the pension of the petitioner for five years. Hence, the present writ petition.

3. While issuing notice of motion on 24.10.2024, the following contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was noticed and operation of the impugned order imposing the punishment upon the petitioner was stayed: -

“Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argues that the charge-sheet which was issued to initiate the departmental proceedings, which has led to the passing of the impugned order dated 25.09.2024 (Annexure P-10) of punishment, was beyond the jurisdiction of the respondent-State keeping in view Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II, according to which, no charge-sheet can be issued to a retired employee in respect of an allegation which is more than 04 years old on the day when the charge-sheet is served and in the present case, the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet (Annexure P-3) much after the retirement and that too for a period which was beyond 04 years hen