Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Harpreet Singh Brar has held that the issuance of a charge sheet to a retired government officer for incidents that occurred more than a decade earlier is impermissible under law. The Court quashed the charge sheet issued after the officer’s superannuation and directed the immediate release of pension, gratuity, and leave encashment dues with interest. The Court further imposed costs on the respondents, observing that the withholding of pensionary benefits was unlawful and contrary to constitutional protections.

The petitioner, a retired Divisional Engineer, approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the charge sheet dated 28 April 2025. The charge sheet was issued by the competent authority after his retirement on 29 February 2024, alleging negligence in the execution of the Optimum Utilisation of Vacant Government Land (OUVGL) scheme project at Verka Milk Plant, Amritsar, during 2010–2011.

Also Read: Is Judicial Officer Eligible For District Judge Post In Bar Quota? | Supreme Court Flags Article 233(2) Issue And Refers Matter To Constitution Bench

The petitioner joined the respondent department as a Junior Engineer in 1991. He was promoted to Sub Divisional Engineer in 2011 and subsequently elevated to Divisional Engineer in 2017. He served the department for over 34 years before retiring upon attaining the age of superannuation. The allegations concerned alleged negligence in executing the OUVGL project nearly 14 years prior to the issuance of the charge sheet.

It was contended that the issuance of the charge sheet after retirement and after an unexplained delay of 14 years was in violation of Rule 2.2(b), Note 2, Clause (b), provisos (i) and (ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rule, Volume II. The petitioner argued that departmental proceedings initiated after retirement cannot be based on events that occurred more than four years prior to their institution. He further submitted that the work under the OUVGL scheme could not be completed due to shortage of funds and non-issuance of a No Objection Certificate by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), and therefore, responsibility for the alleged losses could not be attributed to him.

On account of the charge sheet, the petitioner’s retiral benefits, including gratuity and leave encashment, were withheld by the respondents. This withholding was challenged as unlawful, arbitrary, and violative of the petitioner’s rights under service rules and constitutional provisions.

The State, represented by learned counsel, supported the action of the department but was unable to dispute the specific provisions of Rule 2.2(b), Note 2, Clause (b), provisos (i) and (ii), which expressly prohibit initiation of proceedings in respect of events occurring more than four years prior to the institution of such proceedings after retirement.

The Court examined the factual matrix, including the dates of alleged misconduct, retirement, and issuance of charge sheet. It was observed that the petitioner retired on 29 February 2024, while the impugned charge sheet was issued on 28 April 2025 in respect of events alleged to have occurred in 2010–2011. The question before the Court was whether such proceedings could lawfully be initiated after retirement for events that had occurred more than four years before the date of their institution.

The relevant statutory provision examined was Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. This provision allows the government to withhold or withdraw pension wholly or partially in the event of grave misconduct established in departmental or judicial proceedings. However, the proviso to this rule states that where proceedings are instituted after retirement, they cannot be initiated in respect of events more than four years prior to their institution. The proviso further requires sanction of the government for initiation of such proceedings.

In support of the petitioner’s contention, reliance was placed on the Division Bench judgment of the High Court in Sub Inspector Puran Chand (Retd.) v. State of Punjab and Others, 2000(3) SCT 515, where it was held that issuance of a charge sheet in respect of incidents that occurred more than four years before initiation of proceedings after retirement is wholly barred by law.

The Court also referred to several Supreme Court judgments affirming that pension and retiral benefits are not a matter of bounty or grace but constitute a vested right accruing to the employee by virtue of long and dedicated service. Notably, reference was made to D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305, which held that pension is a right flowing from service rules and not subject to the discretion of the employer. Similarly, the Court cited judgments recognizing pension as deferred wages and a measure of socio-economic justice.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that denial of pension and other retiral benefits without just cause violates the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as these benefits constitute the primary source of livelihood for retired employees and their dependents. Reliance was placed on judgments such as Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545, where the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the right to livelihood.

The petitioner’s counsel further stated precedents such as A.J. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) v. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343, which recognized the entitlement of retirees to timely disbursement of pensionary benefits and held that delay beyond two months from retirement entitles the retiree to interest on the delayed amount.

Thus, the case presented before the Court involved a challenge to the legality of the charge sheet issued after retirement and the consequential withholding of retiral benefits. The petitioner’s principal contention was that the initiation of proceedings in respect of 14-year-old allegations was expressly barred under the statutory rules, and the withholding of pensionary dues was therefore unlawful.

The Court, after considering the rival contentions and examining the statutory provisions, observed: “The rule precisely forbids initiating disciplinary proceedings after an employee has retired, if the matter pertains to an event that happened over four years before the date of initiating the proceedings.”

Referring to the factual matrix of the case, the Court recorded: “In the present case the charge-sheet, which is issued on 28.04.2025, discloses that the date on which the alleged misconduct is between 2010-11, which was about 14 years before the issuance of the charge-sheet, which is issued after the superannuation of the petitioner.”

Citing the Division Bench judgement in Sub Inspector Puran Chand (Retd.) v. State of Punjab and Others, the Court noted: “It is obvious that issuance of the aforesaid charge sheet is wholly unacceptable in law, as the same is clearly barred by the provision of clause (2) of rule 2.2(b).”

On the nature of pension, the Court extensively cited the Constitutional Bench judgment in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India (1983) 1 SCC 305: “The antiquated notion of pension being a bounty, a gratuitous payment depending upon the sweet will or grace of the employer not claimable as a right and, therefore, no right to pension can be enforced through Court has been swept under the carpet by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1971 (Supp) SCR 634 wherein this Court authoritatively ruled that pension is a right and the payment of it does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension.”

The Court further cited the principle laid down in Dodge v. Board of Education (1937), 302 US 74: “A pension is closely akin to wages in that it consists of payment provided by an employer, paid in consideration of past service and serves the purpose of helping the recipient meet the expenses of living.”

On the constitutional dimension, the Court observed: “Oftentimes, retiral benefits are the only source of income for many families, especially when the primary breadwinner has retired. The retired employees and their kin not only rely on the same for fiscal security but also for their very survival.”

In reference to Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545, the Court recorded: “The right to livelihood because, no person can live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood. Deprive a person of his right to livelihood and you shall have deprived him of his life.”

On the obligation of the State to release retiral benefits promptly, the Court referred to the Full Bench decision in A.J. Randhawa Supg. Engineer (Retd.) v. State of Punjab 1998 (1) SCT 343: “Since a Government employee on his retirement becomes immediately entitled to pension and other benefits in terms of the Pension Rules, a duty is simultaneously cast on the State to ensure the disbursement of pension and other benefits to the retiree in proper time. As to what is proper time will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but normally it would not exceed two months from the date of retirement.”

Also Read: Delhi HC Upholds NDMC Blacklist | Forged Bid Documents Strike At Sanctity Of Tender Process | Employer Liable For Acts Of Employees Done In Course Of Employment

The Court concluded that withholding of pensionary benefits without justifiable cause constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and must be condemned.

Having held that the impugned charge sheet was unlawful and barred by law, the Court issued the following directives:

The Court declared: “Since the charge-sheet has been adjudged to have been issued unlawfully, the petitioner is entitled not only to interest but also to the costs of the present proceedings.”

It was directed: “The gratuity amount and the leave encashment, which was unjustifiably withheld, shall be released to the petitioner within a period of thirty (30) days, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, computed from 29.02.2024 until the date of actual disbursement.”

Additionally, the Court ordered: “Since the petitioner’s pensionary dues were unjustifiably withheld, the respondents are directed to pay costs of ₹50,000/-, the same to be disbursed by the Respondent No.2 to the petitioner within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.”

The Court concluded: “The valuable time of this Hon’ble Court has been unnecessarily consumed in adjudicating the present avoidable litigation, which the petitioner was constrained to initiate on account of the conduct of the respondents in gross violation of law.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of in the above terms.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Raj Kumar Arya, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab; Mr. Ritik Chatrat Kapur, Advocate

Case Title: Vasdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:104706

Case Number: CWP-23151-2025

Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar