CWP-21781-2019 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21781-2019 DECIDED ON: 13.07.2026 RAMAN KUMAR VERMA .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS ....RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL. Present: Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG Punjab. SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J Prayer 1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioner seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 13.06.2017 (Annexure P-3), the enquiry report dated 06.02.2019 (Annexure P-8), the show cause notice dated 01.05.2019 (Annexure P- 9) and the communication dated 06.05.2019 (Annexure P-11), on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after his retirement in respect of an incident pertaining to the years 2004-2005, in violation of Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, Chapter II wit a further prayer for release of the withheld retiral benefits, including pension, gratuity and leave encashment, along with interest thereon. MEENU 2026.07.23 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21781-2019 -2- Brief Facts 2. The petitioner joined the respondent department as a Junior Engineer in the year 1981 and was subsequently promoted as Sub Divisional Officer in 1986 and Executive Engineer in 1994. He attained the age of superannuation and retired from service on 29.02.2016. Prior to his retirement, disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under a separate charge-sheet were stated to have been concluded independently. Upon retirement, provisional pension was sanctioned, which was subsequently regularised, and the retiral benefits, including gratuity and leave encashment, were released. 3. After his retirement, the respondent department issued a charge-sheet dated 13.06.2017 under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, alleging irregularities in the procurement and utilisation of cement during the years 2004–2005 while the petitioner was serving as Executive Engineer, Fatehgarh Sahib. The petitioner sought copies of certain documents in connection with the charge-sheet. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, the petitioner submitted his reply, and the departmental enquiry proceeded. 4. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 06.02.2019, pursuant to which a show cause notice dated 01.05.2019 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his response to the show cause notice. During the pendency of the matter, the respondent department also issued a communication dated 06.05.2019 directing initiation of criminal proceedings on the basis of the findings recorded in the enquiry report. 5. Aggrieved by the issuance of the charge-sheet after his retirement, the enquiry report, the show cause notice and the subsequent communication directing MEENU 2026.07.23 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21781-2019 -3- initiation of criminal proceedings, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Contentions On the behalf of petitioner 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned charge-sheet dated 13.06.2017 has been issued after the petitioner’s retirement in respect of alleged events pertaining to the years 2004–2005 and is, therefore, barred by proviso (b) to Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, Chapter II (in short PCS Rules). It is submitted that the said provision prohibits initiation of departmental proceedings against a retired employee in respect of an event which had taken place more than four years prior to the institution of such proceedings. Consequently, the entire disciplinary proceedings, including the enquiry report and the show cause notice, are stated to be without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. 7. It is further argued that the respondents failed to comply with the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. Despite repeated requests, the petitioner was not supplied the relevant documents necessary for submitting an effective defence. It is contended that the enquiry was proceeded and the objection regarding the statutory bar (under Rule 2.2 of PCS Rules) was not considered by the competent authority, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 8. Further, it is contended that the communication dated 06.05.2019 directing initiation of criminal proceedings solely on the basis of the enquiry report is also unsustainable. According to the petitioner, judicial proceedings against a MEENU 2026.07.23 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21781-2019 -4- retired employee cannot be instituted in respect of an event which had occurred more than four years prior thereto. On behalf of the Respondents 9. The learned State counsel submits that the impugned charge-sheet has been validly issued under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 proposing action under Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. It is contended that the proceedings were initiated within one year of the petitioner’s retirement and, therefore, do not suffer from any legal infirmity or lack of jurisdiction as alleged by the petitioner. 10. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet pertains to serious financial irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner while functioning as Executive Engineer, including procurement of cement in violation of the provisions of the PWD Manual of Orders, non-compliance with the prescribed tender procedure, failure to execute the requisite agreement with the supplier, procurement of cement in excess of requirement, resulting in wastage and loss to the Government, and failure to recover the cost of cement allegedly supplied to Gram Panchayats. According to the respondents, these acts caused financial loss to the Government and warranted initiation of disciplinary proceedings. 11. The learned State counsel further contends that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself during the departmental proceedings. The documents sought by him were supplied, an Enquiry Officer was duly appointed, the petitioner participated in the enquiry by filing his reply to the charge-sheet, and the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the applicable MEENU 2026.07.23 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21781-2019 -5- statutory rules. It is submitted that there has been no violation of the principles of natural justice or of the procedure prescribed under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. 12. Heard Analysis 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and material available on record, this Court finds that the foundational facts giving rise to the present controversy are not in dispute. Admittedly, the petitioner retired from service on 29.02.2016 upon attaining the age of superannuation. The impugned charge-sheet came to be issued on 13.06.2017, whereas the allegations forming its subject matter pertain to the years 2004 and 2005. The respondents do not dispute either the date of retirement, the date of issuance of the charge-sheet or the period to which the allegations relate. The controversy, therefore, does not turn upon the factual correctness of the allegations but upon the competence of the respondents to initiate departmental proceedings against a retired employee in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Since the issue strikes at the very jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority, the same deserves consideration at the threshold. 14. The respondents have sought to justify the initiation of the proceedings by contending that the charge-sheet was issued within one year of the petitioner's retirement and, therefore, the action satisfies the requirement of Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. This submission, in the considered opinion of this Court, proceeds on a complete misreading of the statutory provision. The Rule does not make the date of retirement the determinative factor. Rather, the embargo is with reference to the occurrence of the MEENU 2026.07.23 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21781-2019 -6- event forming the basis of the proposed action. The legislative intent is explicit that once four years have elapsed from the date of the alleged misconduct, departmental proceedings cannot be instituted after retirement. The relevant extract of the said rules is here as under: 2.2 (b) The Government further reserves 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 misconduct or negligence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re- 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-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the officer, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the officer had continued in service; (2) 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 (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) no such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution; and MEENU 2026.07.23 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21781-2019 -7- the Public Service Commission shall be consulted before final orders are passed. Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause— (a) departmental proceedings 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) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted— (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint is made or a report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is filed; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date on which the plaint is presented in the Court. 15. Admittedly, the allegations contained in the charge-sheet relate to procurement and utilization of cement during the years 2004 and 2005. The departmental proceedings were instituted only upon issuance of the charge-sheet dated 13.06.2017, nearly twelve years after the alleged events. Such initiation is clearly beyond the period contemplated under Rule 2.2(b). The issue is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in “Sub Inspector Puran Chand (Retd.) v. State of Punjab and others, 2000 (3) SCT 515”, while interpreting the very same provision, held that departmental proceedings initiated after retirement in respect of an event which had occurred more than four years earlier are without jurisdiction. The ratio laid down therein squarely governs the facts of the present case and leaves little room for any contrary interpretation. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced as under: 7. Pointed attention of this Court has been drawn to clause (2) of the aforesaid rule 2.2(b). A careful perusal of the same would show that in case a departmental proceeding is to be initiated against an employee after his retirement, it cannot be in respect of an event which took place more than four years from the date when the proceeding is initiated. It is clear that the charge sheet was issued to MEENU 2026.07.23 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21781-2019 -8- the petitioner in the instant case on 24.11.1998, whereas the incident in question in respect to which he has been proceeded against relates to the year 1988 i.e. one decade prior to the issuance of the charge sheet. It is obvious that issuance of the aforesaid charge sheet is wholly unacceptable in law, as the same is clearly barred by the provision of clause (2) of rule 2.2(b) extracted above. 16. The emphasis laid by the learned State counsel on the seriousness of the allegations, the financial loss allegedly caused to the Government and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, though attractive at first blush, cannot persuade this Court to take a different view. The existence of serious allegations cannot confer jurisdiction where the statute itself withholds it. The question of jurisdiction necessarily precedes an examination of the merits of the allegations. Unless the initiation of the proceedings is found to be legally sustainable, this Court cannot embark upon an exercise to examine the correctness or otherwise of the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry. The jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority must be traceable to the statutory provision governing the field, and where the exercise of such jurisdiction is expressly barred, the merits of the allegations, however serious they may be, recede into insignificance. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the respondents cannot justify proceedings which are otherwise without jurisdiction merely by placing reliance upon the gravity of the alleged misconduct or the conclusions arrived at during the enquiry. 17. In the opinion of this Court, it is unnecessary to delve into these disputed questions. Once the initiation of the proceedings is found to be incompetent in law, any enquiry into procedural compliance would be an exercise in futility. MEENU 2026.07.23 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21781-2019 -9- 18. The challenge to the communication dated 06.05.2019 directing registration of an FIR also deserves acceptance. A perusal of the said communication leaves no manner of doubt that it is founded solely upon the findings recorded in the impugned departmental enquiry. Once the charge-sheet itself is held to be legally unsustainable and the enquiry conducted pursuant thereto is rendered non est, every consequential action flowing therefrom necessarily falls. It is trite that when the foundation is removed, the superstructure erected thereon cannot survive. The consequential direction for initiation of criminal proceedings, having no independent basis apart from the impugned enquiry, is therefore equally liable to be set aside. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the impugned charge-sheet dated 13.06.2017 has been issued in the teeth of the statutory limitation contained in Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. The initiation of departmental proceedings being without jurisdiction, the enquiry report dated 06.02.2019, the show cause notice dated 01.05.2019 and the communication dated 06.05.2019 directing registration of an FIR, all being consequential in nature, cannot be sustained in law. 20. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby allowed. 21. The impugned charge-sheet dated 13.06.2017 (P-3), the enquiry report dated 06.02.2019 (P-8), the show cause notice dated 01.05.2019 (P-9)and the communication dated 06.05.2019 (P-11), together with all proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed and set as ide. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest of 6% per annum on the delayed payment of retiral benefits to the MEENU 2026.07.23 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21781-2019 -10- petitioner from the date it became due till it’s actual realisation within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.. 22. Pending application(s), if any stand disposed off. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE 13.07.2026 Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MEENU 2026.07.23 14:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document