No Departmental Action Against Retired Employee For Event That Occurred Four Years Prior To Issuance Of Chargesheet: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed the departmental proceedings initiated against a retired police inspector from Haryana in 2021 for an alleged misconduct which took place between 1986-88. A single bench of Justice Deepak Sibal referred to Rules 12.2(b) and 12(5)(a) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 and said,"After an employee has retired, there...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed the departmental proceedings initiated against a retired police inspector from Haryana in 2021 for an alleged misconduct which took place between 1986-88.
A single bench of Justice Deepak Sibal referred to Rules 12.2(b) and 12(5)(a) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 and said,
"After an employee has retired, there is complete embargo on initiation of departmental proceedings in respect of events which may have taken place more than four years prior to such initiation and that the date of initiation is deemed to be the date when a charge-sheet is issued to the concerned government employee, pensioner, or government employee."
The petitioner retired in 2019, after which he was granted one year's extension in service until 30.06.2020. Thereafter, an order dated 05.10.2021 was passed and charge-sheet was filed, initiating departmental proceedings against him under Rule 12.2(b) of the Haryana Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2016 on the ground that between the years 1986-88, while he was posted as an Inspector at Karnal, he had also passed his LLB course from Rajasthan. Since he could not have been present at two places at the same time, the department argued that he must have fudged his record at either of the two places.
The petitioner stated that as per Rule 12.2(b), departmental proceedings could not be issued for an event which took place more than four years before the initiation of such proceedings.
Agreeing with him, the Court opined that the apparent object behind these Rules seems to be that a retired employee, after the statutory period of four years, should be left to live in peace in the "twilight zone" of his life.
"The alleged misconduct on his part should be allowed to settle with the efflux of time...The rationale also appears to be based on the phrase 'let bygones be bygones' for retirees and because memory fades with age as also for the reason that it is not easy for a retiree to have access to the relevant record or his colleagues, who may have also retired and settled elsewhere, making it difficult for him to effectively defend himself," Court said and allowed the petition.
Case Title: Raj Pal v. State of Haryana and Others
Citation: CWP-5842-2022
Coram: Justice Deepak Sibal
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 329