Punjab and Haryana High Court quashes proceedings against retired Ayurveda Director

Chandigarh, August 12

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has virtually rapped the state of Punjab and its functionaries for non-application of mind, while holding that a chargesheet could not have been instituted against a retired Director, Ayurveda, at the CBI’s request without examining the rules.

The observation

While the conduct of the respondents is found to be wanting and without application of mind, this court finds that at the request of the CBI, the chargesheet was instituted, which could not have been done without examining the provisions of the rules. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

“While the conduct of the respondents is found to be wanting and without application of mind, this court finds that at the request of the CBI, the chargesheet was instituted, which could not have been done without examining the provisions of the rules,” Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma asserted, while allowing the petition filed by KK Sharma through counsel KS Dadwal.

Quashing the proceedings, Justice Sharma asserted these were initiated contrary to Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services volume –II. As such, these were found to be illegal and were accordingly held to be “non-est”. The petitioner would be entitled to draw retirement benefits, if not being paid.

The state’s stand in the matter was that an excess amount was found to be released to certain persons during the petitioner’s tenure, resulting in a loss to the state government. The department concerned placed the matter before the Governor on the basis of the CBI’s advice. The chargesheet was then issued in terms of the Governor’s order. As such, the state was required to be allowed to continue with the departmental proceedings.

Justice Sharma observed the reply on record made it apparent that the departmental proceedings were instituted against the petitioner solely on the basis of recommendations by the CBI. The investigating agency did not find any criminality against him, but recommended departmental action, alleging negligence while holding the Director’s post.

Referring to the law relating to departmental inquiry against a retired official under Rule 2.2(b), Justice Sharma asserted the principle underlying the provision was to put to rest any proceedings against a person, who retired long ago.

Elaborating, Justice Sharma asserted an inquiry could be instituted even after retirement if not instituted while the officer was in service. But there was an embargo. “Such institution shall be only in respect of an event which has taken place within four years from the date of institution of the chargesheet. If the event when the delinquency is alleged is relating to the period more than four years back, the same cannot be a subject matter of the departmental inquiry”.