LPA-3241-2024 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (245) LPA-3241-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : August 27, 2026 Harbans Singh Bhatti ..Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MINDERJEET YADAV Present: Mr. Bhavpreet Singh Dhatt, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) 1. In the present Letters Patent Appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.19572 of 2024 by which, the plea raised by the appellant that he had already retired and the charge-sheet was served after a period of four and half years of the retirement, which charge-sheet could not have been issued under Rule 2.2 (b) of Volume II Part II of the Punjab Civil Services Rules so as to hold the departmental enquiry into an allegation which are more than four years old, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that a show cause notice was given while the appellant was in service and that too asking certain response to an allegation so as to decide whether there is any misconduct on the part of the appellant but no action was taken on the basis of the show cause notice and the appellant retired on 28.02.2019. The HARSHA RANI 2026.09.03 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-3241-2024 (O&M) 2 charge-sheet was actually issued to him on 26.04.2023 which is more than four years after the retirement but the learned Single Judge has held that once there is a show cause notice which was issued to seek certain response while the appellant was in service, the same will term that the enquiry proceedings have been initiated while in service. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the enquiry proceedings will be deemed to be initiated only on the issuance of the charge-sheet which was served after a period of four years of the retirement and therefore, the claim of the appellant that such enquiry proceedings cannot be initiated in terms of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, has not been interpreted by the learned Single Judge in the correct perspective. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that once the show cause notice was issued, the intention of the Department was clear with regard to the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings while the appellant was in service but as the appellant had filed a writ petition in this Court claiming extension in service and the degree of disability was in dispute and was looked into by the Court, such issue of disciplinary proceedings was not undertaken till the pendency of the said writ petition filed by the appellant himself but once the said writ petition was dismissed and it came to the knowledge of the Department that the degree of disability of the appellant was less than 40% whereas, in an earlier medical certificate given, the same was described as 50%, the such discrepancy was required to be verified by way of charge-sheet and therefore, the charge-sheet was given and the HARSHA RANI 2026.09.03 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-3241-2024 (O&M) 3 learned Single Judge was perfectly correct in holding that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the charge-sheet dated 26.04.2023 cannot be dismissed on the ground of Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 6. It may be noticed that as per the settled principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, the disciplinary proceedings can only be treated to be initiated when the charge-sheet is served. Any show cause notice seeking preliminary enquiry cannot be treated as initiation of an enquiry. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:- “16. On the first question, viz., as to when for the purposes of the sealed cover procedure the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to have commenced, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that it is only when a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a chargesheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee that it can be said that the departmental proceed- ings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. We are in agreement with the Tribunal on this point. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant- authorities that when there are serious allegations and it takes time to collect necessary evidence to prepare and issue charge-memo/charge- sheet, it would not be in the interest of the purity of administration to reward the employee with a promotion, increment etc. does not HARSHA RANI 2026.09.03 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-3241-2024 (O&M) 4 impress us. The acceptance of this contention would result in injustice to the employees in many-cases. As has been the experience so far, the preliminary investigations take an inordinately long time and particularly when they are initi- ated at the instance of the interested persons, they are kept pending deliberately. Many times they never result in the issue of any charge-memo/chargesheet. If the allegations are serious and the authorities are keen in investigating them, ordi- narily it slould not take much time to collect the relevant evidence and finalise the charges. What is further, if the charges are that serious, the authorities have the power to suspend the employee under the relevant rules, and the suspension by itself permits a resort to the sealed cover procedure. The authorities thus are not without a ,remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusions nos. 1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each other. Those conclusions are as follows: "(1) consideration for promotion, selection grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or crimi-nal proceedings against an official; (2) ……………. (3) ……………. (4) the sealed cover procedure can be resorted only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge sheet filed before the criminal court and not before.” 7. Once, it is a conceded fact that the appellant retired on 28.02.2019 and the charge-sheet was served in the year 2023 which is beyond four years, such charge-sheet will be covered under Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules according to which, no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against an employee qua an allegation which HARSHA RANI 2026.09.03 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-3241-2024 (O&M) 5 was four years old and in the present case, the charge-sheet itself was served after a period of more than four years of the retirement and therefore, the same will be covered with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K.V. Jankiraman’s case (supra) that the disciplinary proceedings only stands initiated at the time of the issuance of the charge-sheet which was concededly issued on 26.04.2023. 8. There is another aspect, which was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge by either of the party. 9. It may be noticed that as per the Rules of the PRTC, the Punjab Civil Services Rules are not strictly applicable hence, the question then arises is that whether there is any Rule with the PRTC to initiate the proceedings after the retirement of an employee. It is a settled principle of law that the disciplinary proceedings can be initiated after the retirement only if such provision exist in the Rules giving jurisdiction to the employer to such proceedings. No such Rule of PRTC has been brought before this Court to contend that after retirement, the disciplinary proceedings could have been initiated and continued hence, even on this account, the appellant should succeed. 10. Further, the question was with regard to the degree of disability which was being projected by the appellant to claim extension in service beyond the age of 58 years. Prior to the retirement, there was a medical certificate given to him by Civil Surgeon, Barnala showing the disability to the tune of 50% whereas, subsequently when he was examined by the Civil Surgeon, Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, the degree of disability was 30% which HARSHA RANI 2026.09.03 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-3241-2024 (O&M) 6 was less than the disability which will entitle a disabled employee to seek further extension or seek retirement age of 60 years as being claimed by the appellant. 11. Once, both the certificates were issued by the Government Hospital, the appellant cannot be said to be in conflict with law as there is no allegation that the first certificate was procured one rather than genuine. Once, there are two different medical certificates depicting different degree of disability, coupled with the fact that no extension in service was actually given to the appellant, the matter should rest rather than engaging a disabled person into the disciplinary proceedings after the retirement. 12. Further, no financial loss has been caused which is one of the main ground hence, even if, any allegation is proved qua the appellant, still his pensionary benefits cannot be reduced and only a warning can be issued and litigation is a good warning as he has already spent more finances on litigation than he claimed with the extension in service which was also not extended. 13. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the charge-sheet dated 26.04.203 issued is also set aside. Any retiral benefit which has been withheld, will be released to the appellant within a period of eight weeks, however, the appellant concedes that he will not seek the interest on such release benefits. 14. The present appeal is allowed in above terms. 15. Civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE (MINDERJEET YADAV) August 27, 2026 JUDGE harsha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No HARSHA RANI 2026.09.03 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document