Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harbans Singh Bhatti vs State Of Punjab And Others on 21 October, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138389
1
CWP-19572
19572 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-19572
19572 of 2024
Reserved on
on: 23.09.2024
Pronounced on: 21.10.2024
Harbans Singh Bhatti
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by: - Mr. Bhavpreet S. Dhatt, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate,
and Mr. Lalit Goyal, Advocate,
for respondent No.2.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this
Court by filing instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking quashing of the order dated 04.08.2023 (Annexure P
P-15)
whereby his claim for release of the remaining retiral dues has been
rejected and for quashing
quashing the chargesheet dated 26.04.2023 (Annexure
P-21) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom
therefrom.
2. The controversy involved in the present case, as emerges
from the facts of the case, is that the petitioner joined the service of
respondent No.2 - Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter
referred to as 'PRTC') on 31.07.1989 as Depot Manager (now termed
as General Manager) and retired as such on attaining the age of
superannuation of 58
58 years on 28.02.2019. The petitioner, in order to
1 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138389
CWP-19572
19572 of 2024
claim extension of two years in service has submitted medical
certificates dated 31.05.2017 and 27.10.2017 (Annexures P
P-5 and P-6)
issued by the Civil Surgeon, Barnala, certifying the petitioner's
disability
ity to the extent of 50%. On 03.11.2017 he applied for extension
in service on the basis of instructions dated 19.11.2014 on the basis of
aforesaid certificates.
certificates. The petitioner further claimed extension in
service for two years in terms of letter dated 223.01.2018 issued by the
Directorate of Social Security and Women & Children Development
Department, Punjab, which has been issued in furtherance to the
instructions dated 10.06.2009, which provides that any
officer/employee whose deformity is 40% or above, is eligible for
getting benefit available to handicapped employees from the date he
submits disability certificate issued by the competent authority.
Various complaints such as dated 05.02.2018, 27.04.2018 and
31.12.2018 were received by the PRTC from va
various complainants,
which were to the effect that petitioner has procured the disability
certificate from Civil Surgeon, Barnala, by using his influence and the
said certificates are forged. The said complaints were also sent by the
complainants to the Vigilance
Vigilance Bureau as well as to the Principal
Secretary, Department of Transport, Punjab. The said authorities had
directed the PRTC to consider the complaints and hold inquiry.
Consequently, PRTC asked the petitioner on 16.06.2018 to intimate
that how and when the deformity happened to him. In response thereto,
the petitioner vide letters dated 24.07.2018 and 07.08.2018 informed
the PRTC that the deformity had happened to him long time back and
2 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138389
CWP-19572
19572 of 2024
he does not remember the date and no certificate is available regarding
the treatment taken by him.. On 16.01.2019
16.01.2019, PRTC informed the
petitioner that the percentage of deformity mentioned in the medical
certificate is doubtful and, therefore, the petitioner was directed to get
himself re-examined
examined from the medical board
board of Civil Surgeon, Patiala
and directed to produce the same within seven days. Consequently,
vide letter dated 21.01.2019, Civil Surgeon, Patiala, wrote to the
Principal, Government Medical College, Patiala, to examine the
petitioner after constituting a team of senior doctors of orthopaedics.
On 23.01.2019, petitioner appeared before the medical board of senior
doctors of the department of orthopaedics, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala,
constituted by the Principal of the said College. However, the said fa
fact
was not brought to the notice of the PRTC and, therefore, on
24.01.2019, the petitioner was again requested to appear before the
Principal, Government Medical College, Patiala, for medical
examination. Since the petitioner was continuously writing lett
letters to
the PRTC seeking extension in service, therefore, the PRTC time and
again requested the petitioner to appear before the Principal,
Government Medical College, Patiala, for medical examination as the
petitioner never informed the PRTC that he had alr
already got himself
examined from the said medical board on 23.01.2019. Thereafter, on
25.02.2019, the petitioner filed CWP-5254
CWP 5254 of 2019 seeking directions
to the respondents to extend the service period of the petitioner from 58
years to 60 years being a disabled
disabled person on the basis of disability
certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Barnala. He also sought
3 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138389
CWP-19572
19572 of 2024
quashing of the letters dated 16.01.2019, 25.01.2019, 05.02.2019,
18.02.2019 and 21.02.2019 whereby the petitioner was directed to get
himself re-exa
examined
mined from the Civil Surgeon, Patiala. The petitioner
even concealed the said facts and did not mention anything in the writ
petition, especially the fact that he has already been examined by the
medical board of senior doctors of the Department of Orthop
Orthopaedics,
Rajindra Hospital, Patiala,
Patiala, on 23.01.2019 and his disability has been
assessed to the extent of 30% as per medical examination report dated
30.01.2019 issued by the medical board. Notice of motion in the said
petition was issued on 28.02.2019 for 15.03.2019. On 28.02.2019, a
show-cause
cause notice (Annexure P-16) was issued to the petitioner for
initiating departmental proceedings against the petitioner for submitting
medical certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Barnala, which was
presented in the office vide letter No.633 dated 06.06.2017 in which his
disability was shown as 50% and he sought extension in service and
thereafter the petitioner was asked to submit the medical certificate
issued by the Civil Surgeon, Patiala, in the prescribed proforma and
produce the same in the office but he had not produced the report of the
medical examination conductedd by the concerned Civil Surgeon despite
writing various letters to him and for not submitting the medical report
issued by the Civil Surgeon, Patiala. The petitioner, instead of filing
any reply to the show-cause
show cause notice, sought certain documents vide his
letter dated 08.03.2019, which were duly provided by the PRTC on
22.03.2019 and thereafter the petitioner submitted reply to the show
show-
cause notice on 22.05.2019 and since the writ petition filed by the
4 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138389
CWP-19572
19572 of 2024
petitioner seeking extension in service for two years on the basis of
medical certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Barnala, was pending
before this Court and was sub-judice,
sub judice, the departmental proceedings
were kept in abeyance till final decision of the said case vide order
dated 22.09.2021 (Annexure P-20).
P . In the meanwhile, on coming to
know that the PRTC is now aware regarding his medical examination
conducted by the Board of Senior Doctors of Orthopaedics, Rajindra
Hospital, Patiala, and the PRTC will bring the correct facts to the notice
of the Court, petitioner filed CM-3605-CWP
CWP of 2019 in CWP No.5254
of 2019 for withdrawal of the main petition
petition. The said application was
ordered to be listed along with the main case for the date already fixed
i.e. 15.03.2019. It appears that onn 15.03.2019
15.03.2019, the main case was
adjourned for a longer date.
date The petitioner filed CM
CM-8584-CWP of
2019 in the said writ petition for preponement of date of hearing in
CM-3605-CWP
CWP of 2019, which was earlier filed by the petitioner for
withdrawal of the main writ petition. The said application came up for
hearing before this Court on 30.05.2019 on which date following order
was passed:: -
"CM-8548-CWP-2019
2019 in/and CWP No. 5254
5254-2019
(O&M)
HARBANS SINGH BHATTI VS STATE OF PUNJAB
AND ORS
Present:- Mr. Vivek Aggarwal, Advocate
for the applicant/petitioner.
Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for
non-applicants/respondents
applicants/respondents No. 2 and 3.
*****
5 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138389
CWP-19572
19572 of 2024
Prayer in the application is for preponement of the
date in CM No.3605 of 2019 and which in turn prayed for
withdrawal of the main case.
It has been stated in the application that after filing
of the main writ petition, petitioner stands retired w.e.f.
28.02.2019 and as such nothing survives for adjudication.
Be that as it may it is a matter where even though
the prayer was with regard to extension of the service
tenure of the petitioner from 58 years to 60 years being a
disabled person on the strength of a disability certificate
issued by the Civil Surgeon, Ba
Barnala, yet during the
proceedings of the case an issue has arisen with regard to
the authenticity of such certificate.
Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate representing
respondents No.2 and 3 would apprise the Court that the
petitioner had been got medically re
re-examined before a
Board of Doctors headed by the Civil Surgeon, Rajindra
Hospital, Patiala and the findings would reflect that the
disability certificate upon which reliance has been placed
had been procured.
Since counsel for the parties are present in C
Court,
the date in the main writ petition is preponed from
02.08.2019 and the same is taken up on Board today itself.
Application disposed of .
Main case
List for further consideration on 20.08.2019.
The issue with regard to the mode and manner
adopted for procuring the disability certificate issued by
the Civil Surgeon Barnala, needs to be gone into.
To be shown as part heard.
heard."
Thereafter, the said writ petition came up for hearing
before this Court
Court on 06.02.2020 and the following order was passed: -
6 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138389
CWP-19572
19572 of 2024
"Petitioner at the relevant point of time was serving
on the post of General Manager, P.R.T.C. He was to attain
the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years on 28.2.2019.
Instant writ petition was filed on 25.2.2019 seeking
a Mandamus for directing the respondent
respondent-Corporation to
extend in his favour the benefit of enhanced age of
retirement from 58 years to 60 years on the ground that he
suffers from a disability element of 50% on the basis of
two disability certificates i.e. dated 31.5.2017 (Annexure
P-66 colly) and 27.10.2017/3.11.2017 (Annexure P
P-7 colly).
Both the certificates relied upon by the petitioners were
issued by the office of Civil Surgeon, Barnala.
During the course of arguments it has gone
uncontroverted
ontroverted that pursuant to certain correspondence
exchanged between the petitioner and the respondent
respondent-
Corporation, the petitioner had appeared for medical re
re-
examination before the Medical Board constituted by the
Civil Surgeon, Patiala on 23.1.2019 so aas to assess his
disability. Such fact however for reasons best known to the
petitioner was not even disclosed in the instant writ
petition filed on 25.2.2019. Upon re
re-examination by the
Medical Board constituted by the Civil Surgeon, Patiala a
certificate dated 30.1.2019 is stated to have been issued on
28.2.2019 assessing the disability element of the petitioner
to be 30%.
It is at this stage that the petitioner moved a misc.
application seeking withdrawal of the main writ petition.
Prima facie, this Court
rt is of the view that the
petitioner made a deliberate attempt to mislead this Court
and has concealed vital facts. Mr. Rahul Rampal,
Advocate, who has now entered appearance on behalf of
the petitioner submits that fresh instructions had been
issued by the
he Govt. of India, Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment and it is on account of operation of such
7 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138389
CWP-19572
19572 of 2024
instructions that the disability element could have varied.
He seeks time to place on record such instructions so as to
justify the variance in the disa
disability element in the
certificates issued from the office of Civil Surgeon,
Barnala and Civil Surgeon, Patiala.
Be that as it may, the issue as regards the mode and
manner of issuance of the disability certificate by the Civil
Surgeon, Barnala as opposed to the subsequent disability
certificates issued by the office of Civil Surgeon, Patiala
needs to be probed. Accordingly, this Court deems it fit to
implead the Director, Health Services, Punjab as
party/respondent no.6.
Registry is directed to carry out necessary changes
in the Memo of Parties.
Ms. Simran Grewal learned AAG, Punjab accepts
notice on behalf of newly impleaded respondent no.6.
It is directed that respondent no.6 would look into
the matter of issuance of the different certificates dated
31.5.2017/27.10.2017
.5.2017/27.10.2017 by the Civil Surgeon, Barnala as
also certificate dated 28.2.2019 by the Civil Surgeon,
Patiala as also the effect of the instructions dated 4.1.2018
issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment. A personal affidavit
fidavit of respondent no.6 in
such regard be filed within a period of four weeks from
today.
List on 27.3.2020.
A copy of this order be furnished to counsel for the
parties under the signatures of Bench Secretary.
Secretary."
In the above order, it was recorded bby this Court that
prima facie,
facie, the petitioner had made a deliberate attempt to mislead the
Court and has concealed vital facts as the medical report dated
30.01.2019 issued by the Medical Board constituted by the Civil
8 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138389
CWP-19572
19572 of 2024
Surgeon, Patiala, stated to have been issued on 28.02.2019 had assessed
the disability element of the petitioner to be 30% and consequently,
respondent No.6 in the said writ petition i.e. Director, Health Services,
Punjab, was directed to look into the matter of issuance of different
certificates
ates dated 31.05.2017/27.10.2017 by Civil Surgeon, Barnala, as
also certificate dated 28.02.2019 issued by the Civil Surgeon, Patiala
and he was directed to file his personal affidavit. Thereafter, another
application bearing CM No.8695-CWP
No.8695 CWP of 2020 was fi
filed by the
petitioner for preponement of date of hearing in the main petition and
in the said application, notice was issued to counsel for PRTC i.e.
respondents No.2 and 3 on 10.09.2020.
10.09.2020. Thereafter, vide order dated
12.10.2020, case was ordered to be listed
listed before the same Bench which
heard the matter on 30.05.2019. On 16.10.2020, application for
preponement of date of hearing was dismissed. Thereafter, the case
was adjourned on 24.05.2023
24.0 .2023 and 19.12.2023 and finally on
21.12.2023, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the said
writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
non prosecution.
3. Now by filing the instant petition, the petitioner is merely
challenging the issuance of charge-sheet
charge sheet dated 26.04.2023 (Annexure
P-21) as also the order dated 04.08.2023
2023 (Annexure P
P-15) whereby his
claim for release of the remaining retiral dues has been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under
Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume
Volume-II (hereafter
referred to as 'the Rules'),
Rul , no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated
against an employee after his retirement if the event is more than four
9 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138389
CWP-19572
19572 of 2024
years old and since the charge in the charge
charge-sheet relates to the period
2017/2019, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. IIn support of
the said contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of this
Court in O.P. Kharab v. HVPN Ltd. and others, 2007(2) SCT 49 and
Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 2012(9) SCT 540
However, no argument has been addressed for quashing of the order
dated 04.08.2023 for release of unpaid retiral dues.
5. Per contra,, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3
has submitted that the present case would fall within the ambit of
proviso 1 of Rule 2.2(b) of the Rules as in the present case, the
petitioner was issued show-cause
show cause notice on 28.02.2019
28.02.2019, when he was in
service and on receipt of the said show-cause
show cause notice, the petitioner
sought certain documents vide his application dated 08.03.2019
(Annexure P-17),
P 17), which were supplied to him vide letter dated
22.03.2019 (Annexure P-18)
P 18) and thereafter he ffiled reply to the show-
cause notice on 22.05.2019 and since the matter was sub
sub-judice before
this Court in CWP No.5254 of 2019, therefore, the departmental
proceedings were kept in abeyance till the final decision of the said
case, vide order dated 22.09.2021
021 (Annexure P
P-20), and the said
petition has been dismissed for non-prosecution
prosecution due to non
non-appearance
of the counsel for the petitioner,
petitioner therefore, charge
charge-sheet has been issued
to the petitioner.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
10 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138389
CWP-19572
19572 of 2024
7. Before proceeding further in the matter, iit would be
relevant to reproduce Rule 2.2(b) of the Rules, which reads as under: -
"2.2(a).. Recoveries from pensioners
x x x x
(b) The Government further reserve to themselves
the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any
part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period
and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of
the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to
Government, if, in a departmental or judicial proceeding,
the pensioner is found guilty of grave mis
mis-conduct or
negligence during the period of his service, including
service rendered upon re-employment
employment after retirement:
Provided that-
(1) Such departmental proceedings, if instituted
while the officer was in service, whether
before his retirement or during his re
re-
employment, shall after the final re
retirement of
the officer, be deemed to be a proceeding
under this article and shall be continued and
concluded by the authority by which it was
commenced in the same manner as if the
officer had continued in service
service;
(2) Such departmental proceedings, if not
instituted while the officer was in service
whether before his retirement or during his re
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 yyears before
such institution; and
11 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138389
CWP-19572
19572 of 2024
(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 m
made in
relation to the officer during his service.
(3) No such judicial proceedings, if not instituted
while the officer was in service, whether before
his retirement or during his re
re-employment
shall be instituted in respect of a cause of
action which arose
rose or an event which took
place more than four years before such
institution; and
The Public Service Commission should
be consulted before final orders are passed.
Explanation.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this
rule-
(a) a departmental proceeding shall be
deemed to be instituted on the date on
which the statement of charges is
issued to the officer or pensioner, or if
the officer has been placed under
suspension from an earlier date, on
such date; and
(b) a judicial proceeding shall be deemed
to be instituted
instituted-
(i) in the case of a criminal
proceeding, on the date on
which the complaint or report of
the police officer on which the
Magistrate takes cognizance, is
made; and
12 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138389
CWP-19572
19572 of 2024
(ii) in the case of a civil proceeding,
on the date of presentation of
the plaint in the court.
Note:-As
As soon as proceedings of the nature referred
to in the above rule are instituted, the authority
which institutes such proceedings should without
delay intimate the fact to the Accountant
Accountant-General.
The amount of the pension withheld under clauses
(b) should not ordinarily exceed one
one-third of
pension originally sanctioned, including any
amount of pension to be so withheld, regard should
be had to the consideration whether the amount of
the pension leftt to the pensioner in any case would
be adequate for his maintenance.
(c) (1) Where any departmental or judicial
proceeding is instituted under clause (b) of rule
2.2 or where a departmental proceeding is
continued under clause (i) of the proviso
thereto against
gainst an officer who has retired on
attaining the age of compulsory retirement or
otherwise, he shall be paid during the period
commencing from the date of his retirement to
the date on which, upon conclusion of such
proceedings, final orders are passed, a
provisional pension not exceeding the
maximum pension which would have been
admissible on the basis of his qualifying service
up to the date of retirement or if he was under
suspension on the date of retirement up to date
immediately proceeding to the da
date on which
he was placed under suspension; but no
gratuity or death-cum
cum-retirement gratuity shall
be paid to him until the conclusion of such
proceedings and of final orders thereon.
13 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138389
CWP-19572
19572 of 2024
The gratuity, if allowed to be drawn by
the competent authority on the conclusion of
the proceedings will be deemed to have fallen
due on the date of issue of final orders by the
competent authority:
Provided that where Departmental
proceedings have been instituted under rule 10
of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and
Appeal)
ppeal) Rules, 1970 for imposing any of the
penalties specified in clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of
rule 5 of the said rules, the payment of gratuity
or death-cum-retirement
retirement gratuity, as the case
may be, shall not be withheld.
(2) Payment of provisional pens
pension made
under sub-clause
clause (1) shall be adjusted
against the final retirement benefits
sanctioned to such officer upon
conclusion of the aforesaid proceedings
but no recovery shall be made where the
pension finally sanctioned is less than
the provisional pe
pension or the pension is
reduced or withheld either permanently
or for a specified period.
Note.-The
The grant of pension under this rule shall not
prejudice the operation of rule 6.4 ibid when final
pension is sanctioned upon conclusion of the
proceedings."
8. A perusal of rule 2.2 of Punjab Civil Services Rules would
show that it deals with the recoveries from pension. Under Clause (b)
of Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume
Volume-II, the
Government further reserves to themselves the right of withholding or
withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a
14 of 15
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138389
CWP-19572
19572 of 2024
specified period and the right of ordering of recovery from a pension of
the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in
a departmental or judicial proceeding,
proceeding, the pensioner is found guilty of
grave misconduct or negligence during the period of his service,
including service rendered upon re-employment
re employment after retirement. The
position with regard to initiation of disciplinary proceedings has to be
considered
red from dated 28.02.2019 when petitioner was still in service
and was issued show-cause
show cause notice and after filing of the reply by the
petitioner on 22.05.2019, the disciplinary proceedings were kept in
abeyance in view of the pendency of earlier CWP No.5254 of 2019 and
the same has been dismissed for non-prosecution,
non prosecution, therefore, there is no
bar for issuance of charge-sheet
charge sheet dated 26.04.2023. To that extent, no
directions are called for in this petition to draw the curtains on the
departmental proceedings. In view of what has been stated
hereinabove, the present case does not fall within the ambit of proviso 2
of Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Service
Services Rules, Volume II, Part II
and would rather fall under proviso 1 of Rule 2.2(b)
2.2(b). The judgments
cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable
and are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
9. In this view of the matter, finding no merit in the present
petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs
costs.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
21.10.2024 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
15 of 15
