High Court admonishes Punjab Govt for dismissal of retired staffer

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 26

In a shocking case of administrative overreach, an employee was dismissed from service seven months after his retirement, compelling the Punjab and Haryana High Court to observe the order was passed “without any jurisdiction” and required to be treated as “non est in the eyes of law”

Taking up the petition filed against the State of Punjab and other respondents, Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi also admonished the authorities concerned for non-application of mind by passing arbitrary and illegal order. The court observed the petitioner retired from service on December 31, 2010, and was not a convicted employee at that time, though the criminal proceedings were pending.

Justice Sethi also took note of the fact that the petitioner was convicted in a criminal case by the Zira Judicial Magistrate First Class on August 1, 2011. His appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court in April 2014 and the conviction was upheld up to the Supreme Court.

Justice Sethi asserted the question for court’s consideration was whether the state had the jurisdiction to dismiss an employee retired after attaining the age of superannuation. The Bench asserted the counsel for the state and other respondents had not been able to show any rule according to which the service of a retired employee could be terminated.

“In the absence of any such rule shown to this court, it cannot be said that the order passed by the respondents terminating the services of the petitioner after his retirement is with any jurisdiction of respondents/state to pass such kind of order,” the Bench asserted.

Referring to the order under challenge passed on January 21, 2013, Justice Sethi asserted the petitioner was dismissed from service from the date of his conviction. “It may be noticed that the petitioner was convicted on August 1, 2011, and on the said date also the petitioner was a retired employee. This shows that what kind of application of mind was done by the authorities concerned while passing the impugned order. The employee not in service is being dismissed by the respondents, which is totally arbitrary and illegal and without any jurisdiction,” the court said.

Before parting with the case, Justice Sethi observed that the petitioner at the same time could not rebut that the state could pass an order under Rule 2.2 of Punjab Civil Services Rule “with regard to grant of pension after the conviction, which reflected upon his moral”.

The Bench added the petitioner would be eligible for the arrears of the pension and entitled to 6 per cent per annum interest. But liberty was given to the respondents to pass order in case they intended to proceed under Rule 2.2 (a). But it would operate prospectively.

‘Without any jurisdiction’

Justice Sethi asserted the question for court’s consideration was whether the state had the jurisdiction to dismiss an employee retired after attaining the age of superannuation