HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA versus AMRIK SINGH

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 6 · Decided: 23-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARY ANA 
v. 
AMRIKSINGH 
NOVEMBER23, 1994 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND K. JA YACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Service law 
Central Civil Services Pension Rules-Rule 9-Punjab and Haryana 
Civil Services Manual, Vol II-Rule 2.2-Disciplinary Proceedings-
Proceedings validly initiated should be continued till appropriate orders 
passed-Proceedings do not abate consequent on retirement of 
delinquent-Order to be passed when delinquent already retired-Power of 
competent authority to withhold pension. 
Central Civil Services Pension Rules- Rule 9-Punjab and Haryana 
Civil 
Service -Manual, 
Vol 
II-Rule 
2.2-Employee 
attained 
superannuation-Re-employment-Charges of embezzlement of funds-
Disciplinary proceedings-Expiry of period of re-employment-Employee 
allowed to retire-Finding of embezzlement recorded-Order of dismissal 
from service-Whether valid in law-Order of giving effect to order of 
dismissal from date of its order-Superfluous as employee no longer in 
-service on that date-Power of competent authority to withhold pension. 
The 
respondent, 
while 
working 
as 
a 
Selection 
Grade 
Superintendent in the High Court had attained his superannuation. His 
tenure was extended by two years and thereby be was to retire after the 
expiry of re-employment period on August 31, 1982. During bis re-
employment a charge sheet was issued against the respondent on the 
grave charges of embezzlement. On expiry of two years he was allowed 
to retire. After conducting the enquiry, the respondent was dismissed 
from service by orders dated June 7, 1983 and August 31, 1983 with 
immediate effect. On appeal, the order of dismissal from service was 
confirmed. Writ perition filed against the order was allowed by the 
High Court and the institution of the disciplinary proceedings and 
imposition of penalty of dismissal from service against the respondent 
were declared void. This appeal has been filed agaipst the said order of 
the High Court. 
6 
H.C. OF PB. AND HARYANA v. AMRIK S~GH 
7 
The appellant contended that once disciplinary proceedings have A 
been initiated according to the Rules while the employee was in office, 
either before his attaining superannuation or on expiry of tlie period of 
re-employment, the departmental proceedings would be continued till 
the final orders were passed. In view of the proved grave misconduct of 
the embezzlement of the funds of the High Court, the Chief Justice 
dismissed the respondent from service with immediate effect from the B 
date of the passing of the order, and that the Division Bench was not 
right in holding that the order is void. 
The respondent contended that, though the disciplinary authority 
! 
had power to continue the proceedings, after the delinquent had 
attained superannuation, and was allowed to retire, the Chief Justice C 
had no power to pass the order of dismissal; and that it would be open 
only to pass appropriate order under the Pension Rules and no other. 
In the instant case the question for consideration was whether the 
order of dismissal was valid in law or what would be the appropriate 
order that could be passed in the circumstances of the case. 
D 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1.1 The disciplinary proceedings validly initiated against 
the delinquent officer should be continued till the appropriate orders 
are passed by the competent authority, though the delinq9ent had 
retired, during the pendency of the enquiry and the proceedings were E 
not abated, consequent on the retirement. Several options are open to 
the appointing authority. Before the delinquent reaches super-
annuation, the enquiry should be got expedited and appropriate order 
passed on the basis of the findings reached by the disciplinary 
authority. In case it is not possible to complete the enquiry or to pass F 
the final order, the suspension should be extended and re-employment 
ordered or the later extended appropriate orders during the extended 
period. In case it is found that either of those courses, neither is feasible 
nor possible and allowed the delinquent to retire, it would be open to 
the disciplinary authority to record in its order that "but for the 
retirement he would have passed an order of dismissal or removal from G 
service." Since the delinquent had retired the disciplinary authority 
would record in the order that the delinquent "~ominitted. grave 
misconduct of the proved charge" and suitable order be made. 
(10 D to H, l

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.