ORDER :

1. Petitioner No. 1 is the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB); Petitioner No. 2 is the Chief Engineer, HRD-cum-Inquiry Officer and Petitioner No. 3 is the Senior Executive Engineer working in PSEB. Respondent was the employee of PSEB who retired from service, with effect from 30.4.2004. He had given the notice on 27.2.2004 for voluntary retirement which was accepted. As a result, the Respondent stood voluntary retired from 30.4.2004. However, almost 4 years after his retirement i.e. on 7.1.2008, the Respondent was served with the charge sheet levelling certain allegations against him, allegedly committed between 15.5.2002 to 3.12.2002. These charges which were for the period May 2002 to December 2002 were obviously of a period much earlier than 4 years before the serving of the charge sheet dated 7.1.2008 and much after his retirement when he had ceased to be the employee of PSEB.

2. The Respondent filed the Writ Petition in the High Court seeking quashing of the said charge sheet on the ground that it was barred in view of Rule 2.2.(B) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules 2 reserves right with the Government to withhold or withdraw a pension or a part of it under certain circumstances viz. when in judicial proceedings or departmental proceedings, such an employee is found to have committed grave misconduct or negligence. It also provides for recovery of peculiar loss, if caused. However, second proviso to the aforesaid provision stipulates the time limit within which the departmental inquiry can be instituted, in respect of an ex-employee if it was not stated while such a Government officer was in service. The precise language of second proviso is as follows:

Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment:

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government;

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and if he has retired, the event should not be more than 4 years old.

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the officer during his service.

3. In the present case since the changes were of the year 2002 and charge sheet served in the year 2008, it was manifest that the alleged event took place much more than 4 years before the serving of charge sheet and after his retirement. In this ground the learned Single Judge quashed the said chargesheet dated 7.1.2008. The Petitioners chose to file appeal before the Division Bench which has also been dismissed by the Division Bench vide impugned judgment dated 20.8.2009.

4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that in view of aforesaid admitted facts, second proviso of Rule 2 states at the face of the Petitioner and no fault can be found in the judgment of the High Court.

5. Virtually accepting the aforesaid position the learned Counsel for the Petitioner made a fervent plea the cost of Rs. 10,000/- which the Division Bench of the High Court has imposed upon the PSEB, with direction that PSEB shall recover the same from the officer who authorised the filing of the said appeal. He submitted that in any case such a direction for recovery of the amount from the concerned officer should be done away with.

6. The reason given by the High Court while imposing the cost is as under:

This is yet another instance of a frivolous appeal filed at the hands of a statutory body. There was absolutely no merit and no cause to file the instant appeal. Despite the same, the Punjab State Electricity Board, chose to prefer the instant appeal without application of mind. In this case, the Punjab State Electricity Board has not only incurred unnecessary expenses, but also wasted precious Court time.

In view of the above, we