Sarita Rani 2025.01.27 19:09 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RA-CW-329-2019 in CWP-13227-2016 2025:PHHC:011817 “It has also been decided in principle by PUNSUP that gratuity will be paid on rerement of its employees in accordance with the provisions of The Gratuity Act, 1972 and in the light of PUNSUP Regulaons, 1985. However, cases of the+, embezzlement and other nefarious acvies of any Inspectors/Officials while in service upon rerement will be dealt with in accordance with law. As far as departmental proceedings are concerned, assurances have been given in Court by the Managing Director that in the first instance a fair and proper fact finding enquiry will be conducted and only when sufficient grounds are made out for a regular departmental enquiry, then PUNSUP may proceed against the delinquent officer by serving a charge sheet and by following the proper procedure laid down in the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 applicable to PUNSUP. This decision is with respect to the rered employees. These decisions take care of much of the grievance of the peoner and others who may be similarly placed as the issue of gratuity and encashing of earned leave etc. has been largely addressed at the hearing today in the presence of the Managing Director, PUNSUP.” 4. Learned counsel for the applicants-respondents contends that since the peoner has already rered, so relaonship of master and servant between the pares stood severed. Besides, employment in the Corporaon is not pensionable and so, provisions of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1970 read with Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. II, Part-I are not applicable to the rered employees and so, the order dated 30.05.2019 requires to be reviewed to the extent that in case rered employee is held liable for any such act, which led to the loss to the Corporaon, then appropriate proceedings for recovery of amount of loss so assessed, would be filed before the Civil Court. 5. Learned counsel for the original peoner has strongly opposed the applicaon for review by submi2ng that order dated 30.05.2019 was passed, based upon the statement made by the Managing Director of the Corporaon and so, there exists no ground for review. p. 2 Sarita Rani 2025.01.27 19:09 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order RA-CW-329-2019 in CWP-13227-2016 2025:PHHC:011817 6. A6er hearing learned counsel for the pares, this Court does not find any merit in the present review applicaon. In case, the relaonship of master and servant between the pares had come to an end, inasmuch as peoner – Santokh Singh had already rered and could not have been proceeded under the provisions of Rules ibid, as applicable to the PUNSUP, the said stand was required to be taken by the Managing Director before the Court while passing the order dated 30.05.2019. The Corporaon cannot be now permi<ed to iniate the proceedings before the Civil Courts against the peoner, i.e. a rered employee by filing the suit for the loss, which may have accrued to the corporaon. 7. In view of facts and circumstances of the case as noced above, this Court does not find any ground to review the order dated 30.05.2019. As such, the present applicaon is dismissed. January 27, 2025 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No p. 3 Sarita Rani 2025.01.27 19:09 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order