# HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARY ANA v. AMRIKSINGH NOVEMBER23, 1994

- **Citation:** [1994] Supp. 6 S.C.R. 6
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1994
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 2343-45 of 1994
- **Bench:** K. Ramaswamy, K. Ja Yachandra Reddy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/high-court-of-punjab-and-hary-ana-v-amriksingh-november23-1994-12808
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

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 ProceedingsProceedings 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 fundsDisciplinary 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 reemployment 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 superannuation, 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 fo

## Text

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 ProceedingsProceedings 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 fundsDisciplinary 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 reemployment 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 superannuation, 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 lA & BJ
D. V Kapoor v. Union of India and Ors., [1990) 4 SCC 314, relied on.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R
1.2. The disciplinary authority, consequent upon the result of the
departmental or judicial proceedings, should record a finding whether
the delinquent has committed grave misconduct or negligence during
the period of his serivce including the seryj~~- rendered upon reemployment after retirement. On recording such a positive finding, the
competent authority has been empowered to with hold the pension in
whole or in part or to recover the pencuniary loss, if any, caused to the
Government. These orders are only consequent to the finding of the
guilty or grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of the duty
during the period of his service including the service rendered upon reemployment after retirement. [HE & F]
1.3. In the instant case, the Chief Justice of the High Court, on the
administrative side, while passing the order of dismissal agreed with
the enquiry officer's finding that the respondent committed
embezzlement and mentioned that the order of dismissal would come
into immediate effect from the date of the order. He appeared to have
intended to say that the order of dismissal will be operative from the
date of the order of the dismissal. But it would appear that the Chief
Justice was not apprised that the delinquent had already retired from
service on completion of two years period of extended service of reemployment. Therefore, the order of giving effect to the order of
dismissal from the date of its order was of no consequence and became
superfluous as he was no longer in service as on that date. However, he
has the power either under Rule 2.2 of the Punjab and Haryana Civil
Service Manual, Vol II or Rule 9 of the Central Civil Service Pension
Rules to take appropriate action as was made applicable to the staff of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as the case may be.
[llG & H, 12A)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2343-45 of
1994.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.7.93 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in C. W.P. Nos. 5629-31 of 1984.
G
D.D. Thakur, Mi:s. Kawaljit Kochar, N.N. Bhatt and Mrs. Rani
Chhabra for the Appellant.
D.V. Sehgal, Ms. Rekha Palli, Anant Palli, Deepak Singh and Ms.
Monika Gusain for the Respondent.
· H,
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
t
..
..
H. C. OF PB. AND HARY ANA v. AMRIK SINGH
9
These appeals by special leave are from the judgment of the High A
Court of Punjab & Haryana in C.W.P. Nos. 56:29, 5630 and 5631of1984
dated July 23, 1993. The respondent, while was working as a Selection
Grade Superintendent in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, had attained
his superannuation after reaching 58 years of age on August 31, 1980. The
Chief Justice of the High Court had extended his tenure by two years and
thereby he was to retire after the expiry of re-employment period on August B
31, 1982. During his re-employment, it had come to the knowledge of the
Chief Justice that the respondent had committed misconduct of embezzling
the funds of the High Court. Therefore, he was kept under suspension on
December 17, 1981 and a charge-sheet was issued after enlistment of three
specific charges against the respondent on the grave charges of
embezzlement. On expiry of two years he was allowed to retire. After C
conducting the enquiry by the Dist. Judge and on receipt of the report in
that behalf complying with clause 2 of Article 311 of the Constitution and
the relevant statutory rules, the Chief Justice on the administrative side
dismissed the respondent from service by his orders dated June 7, 1983 and
August 31, 1983 with immediate effect. On appeal, as per the Rules, the D
Division Bench on the administrative side confirmed the order on January
24, 1984. The respondent challenged the orders in three Civil Writ Petition
Nos. 5629, 5630 and 5631/84. The Division Bench by judgment dated July
23, 1993 declared thus:
"For the reasons stated above, C.W.P. No. 5629/84 is E
.allowed. The initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and
imposition of penalty of dismissal from service against the
petitioner are declared void. The orders of dismissal from
service dated June 7, 1983 passed by the disciplinary
authority and of the Appellate authority dated August 24,
1984, which are under challenge in C.W.P. Nos. 5630, 5631 F
of 1984, are quashed. However, we leave it open to the
disciplinary authority, which in this case is the Chief Justice
of this Court, to take appropriate action under Rule 9 of the
Pension Rules, ifhe so desires."
This order is now under challenge by leave of this Court.
G
Shri D.D. Thakur, learned senior counsel for the appellant has
contended that it is settled law that once disciplinary proceedings have been
initiated according to the Rules while the employee was in office, either
before his attaining superannuation or expiry of the period of reemployment, die logical consequence would be that the departmental H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R
proceedings would be continued till the final orders are passed. Final order
would be either exoneration of the delinquent of the charges or to pass an
appropriate punishment in accordance with Rules. In this case, 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 date of the passing of the order. The Division
Bench was not right in holding that the order is void. Consequential to the
order of dismissal, appropriate action would be taken under the Pension
Rules either under section 9 of the Central Rules or under Rule section 2 (2)
(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. Shri Sehgal, learned
Senior counsel for the delinquent contended that, though the disciplinary
authority has power to continue the proceedings, after the delinquent had
attained superannuation, and was allowed to retire, the Chief Justice had no
power to pass the order of dismissal. It would be open only to pass
appropriate order under the Pension Rules and no other.
The respective contentions gives rise to the question whether the orders
of dismissal is valid in law or what would be the appropriate orders that
could be passed in the circumstances of the case. In D. V. Kapoor v. Union
of India and Ors., [1990) 4 SCC 314, considering Rule 9 of the Central
Pension Ruies, this Court held that the initiation of the disciplinary
proceedings against the delinquent must be deemed to be proceedings under
the Pension Rules and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by
which the proceedings have been commenced in the same manner as if the
Government servant has been continued in service. In that case, since the
prior approval of the President was required to be obtained, it was held that
the requirement has been complied with. Accordingly, it was held that the
proceedings validly initiated against the delinquent officer should be
continued till the appropriate orders are passed by the competent authority,
though the delinquent had retired, during the pendency of the enquiry and
the proceedings were not abated, consequent on the retirement. The same
ratio would apply to the facts of this case. Several options are open to the
appointing authority and in case the disciplinary authority also happens to
be the appointing authority. Before the delinquent reaches superannuation,
the enquiry should be got expedited and appropriate order passed on the
basis of the findings reached by the disciplinary authority. In case the
delinquent attempts to drag the proceedings or he does not co-operate in the
completion of the enquiry, after giving necessary warning in writing,
suitable course appropriate to the facts is required to be adopted. In case it
is not possible to complete the enquiry or to pass the final order, the
suspension should be extended and re-employment ordered or the later
extended and to pass appropriate orders during extended period. In case it is
..
;
H. C. OF PB. AND HARY ANA v. AMRIK SINGH
l l
found that either of those courses, neither is feasible nor possible and A
allowed the delinquent to retire from service, it would be open to the
disciplinary authority to record in its order that "but for the retirement he
would have passed on order of dismissal or removal from service." Since
the delinquent had retired the disciplinary authority would record in the
order that the delinquent "committed grave misconduct of the proved
charge" and suitable order be made.
B
Rule 2 (2) of the Pension Rules, Clause (b) clearly mentions thus:
"2 (2) (b) The Government further reserves to themselves the
right to withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of
it, whether permanently or for a specified period and right of C
ordering the recovery from the pension of the whole or part
of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if, in a
departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found
guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of
his service including service rendered upon re-employment
after retirement". (emphasis supplied)
D
A reading thereof clearly indicates that the disciplinary authority,
consequent upon the result . of the departmental or judicial proceedings,
should record a finding whether the delinquent has committed grave
misconduct or negligence during the period of his service including the
service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. On recording such E
a positive finding, the competent authority has been empowered to withhold
the pension in whole or in part or to recover the pecuniary loss, if any,
caused to the Government. These orders are only consequential to the
finding of the guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in the discharge of
the duty during the period of his service including the service rendered
upon re-employment after retirement.
F
It is seen that the learned Chief Justice of the High Court, on the
administrative side, while passing the order of dismissal agreed with the
enquiry officer's finding that the respondent committed embezzlement and
mentioned that the order of dismissal would come into immediate effect
from the date of the order. In other words, he appears to have intended to G
say that the order of dismissal will be operative from the date of the order
of the dismissal. But it would appear that the Chief Justice was not apprised
that the delinquent had already been retired from service on completion of
two years period of extended service of re-employment with effect from
August 31, 1982. Therefore, the order of giving effect to the order of H
A
B
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R
dismissal from the date of its order was of no consequence and became
superfluous as he was no longer in service as on that date. However, it
would be clear that he has the power either under Rule 2.2 of the Punjab &
Haryana Civil Service Manual, Vol. II or Rule 9 of the Central Civil
Services Pension Rules to take appropriate action as was made applicable to
the staff of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana as the case may be.
Therefore, it would be open to him to take such action as is open to him
under law. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside, and the writs
are issued with the above modification. The appeals are allowed. No costs.
A.G.
Appeals allowed.
••• lJ
l"J'
..