Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljeet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 May, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061283-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:061283-DB
(108) LPA-1103-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 03.05.2024
Baljeet Singh ......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellant (s).
Mr. Saurav Khurana, Addl. AG, Punjab.
Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-PSPCL.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is sought of the
judgment dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-1372-
2024, whereby the learned Single Judge has declined to quash the charge-sheet
dated 30.11.2023 (Annexure P-12), which is the day when the appellant also
superannuated.
2. The case of the appellant was accordingly dealt in detail while
referring to the concerned provisions by the learned Single Judge that merely
because the charge-sheet was received by the employee on 04.12.2023, the
argument that the employer-employee relationship got snapped was rejected,
by keeping in mind provisions of Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules
Vol.II, which provides the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061283-DB
whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if in a departmental
or judicial proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty, on account of mis-
conduct or negligence. The time bar as such is provided under Rule 2 (b)
(2)(ii) that such departmental proceedings shall not be instituted in respect of
any event which took place more than four years before such institution.
3. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition in
limine had noticed the various endorsements made in the covering letter and
the fact that letter was issued at Patiala and was to be served upon the writ
petitioner and served only on 04.12.2023, since apparently he was posted at
Roopnagar. The learned Single Judge had also noticed that an effort was made
to serve the writ petitioner and rather responsibility was fixed upon the other
officials that in case of non-communication action would be taken against
them. Apparently, keeping in view the logistics and the distance involved,
service might have not been effected on the same day, though the charge-sheet
was issued on 30.11.2023 when he was still in service. The fact remains that
from the record and it is clear from the allegations which have been made qua
large number of unauthorized connections of approximately 183 in number,
the charge-sheet was issued wherein reference had been made of 73 such
connections which were ranging from the year 2013 till the year 2022, as per
the chart which has now been prepared in the writ petition. Thus, it is the
argument of the counsel that 24 connections out of 73 connections were
beyond the purview of 4 years.
4. It is also a matter of record that another charge-sheet dated
28.11.2023 had also been issued and CWP-28334-2023 had been filed
challenging the said charge-sheet in which notice of motion had been issued,
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061283-DB
vide order dated 16.12.2023 (Annexure P-16). It is, thus, apparent that the
employer as such was gathering all the information, as to the number of
unauthorized connections, which had been issued when the appellant was
posted at Rampura Phool.
5. A perusal of Annexure A-1 would go on to show that even an FIR
bearing No.59 dated 02.07.2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 473, 120-B PC
was registered at Police Station Phool, District Bathinda. An SIT had been
constituted and investigating had been conducted by the SSP (PBI), Economic
Offences and Cyber Crime, Bathinda. The complaint was filed in the year
2019 with the Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh regarding unauthorized
tubewell connections. After conducting an enquiry by a team consisting of
Additional Superintending Engineer, Technical Audit, Bathinda and
Additional Superintending Engineer Enforcement, Bathinda, a report of 20
tubewell connections was prepared. As per office noting which is now sought
to be highlighted there was a noting that action against a single officer was not
justified and the matter needs to be deliberated in the BOD for final
conclusion. The office noting further goes on to show that in fact a
clarification was also sought from the appellant, but the same was not done
and it was noticed that he was due to retire on 30.11.2023.
6. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the
learned Single Judge was well within its right not to go into the issue. Rather it
was for the appellant to file his reply to the charge-sheet to point out as to
which of the charges could not have been issued against him being beyond the
prescribed period under Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. The
learned Single Judge has relied upon plethora of judgments to come to the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061283-DB
conclusion that the departmental proceeding ordinarily should not be quashed
and it is only in exceptional circumstances power of judicial review would be
exercised. Relevant judgments which had been relied upon by the learned
Single Judge are State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Onkar Chand Sharma,
(2001) 9 SCC 171, The Special Director and another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam
Ghouse and another, 2004(1) SCT 671 and Coal India Limited and others
Vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra, (2007) 5 Scale 724.
7. The Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab VS. V.K.
Khanna, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 343 has specifically held that until there
is malafides, the writ Court would not exercise its jurisdiction. The above
sequence of events which have been noted above would go on to show that it
is not a case of malafides, rather apparently it is a case of sanctioning large
number of unauthorized tubewell connections, which had led to the issuance of
the charge-sheet.
8. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the
judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to quash the charge-sheet does
not suffer from any infirmity, which would warrant interference in the present
letter patent appeal. The present appeal is hereby dismissed in limine.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
03.05.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 4
