Can’t order restoration from pension if no loss brought about to govt, guidelines HC

Can’t order restoration from pension if no loss brought about to govt, guidelines HC


Tribune Information Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, February 17

The Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom has made it clear that the restoration from pension can’t be ordered as a punitive measure within the absence of discovering of loss brought about to the federal government.

The judgment got here in a case the place 10 per cent lower in pension was imposed on an worker after his superannuation.

10% CUT IMPOSED AFTER SUPERANNUATION

  • The judgment got here in a case the place 10 per cent lower in pension was imposed on an worker after his superannuation
  • An inquiry officer appointed in March 2012 held, that the allegation towards him was not confirmed, although there was negligence on his half

The Bench of Justice MS Ramachandra Rao and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur was advised {that a} chargesheet dated January 3, 2012, was issued invoking Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Attraction) Guidelines, 1970, after the worker — holding the put up of Assistant Controller (Native Audit), Finance Division — superannuated on March 31, 2010.

The gist of the costs framed was that the complete good thing about the market charges was not availed because the works weren’t executed by means of tenders. An inquiry officer appointed in March 2012 held, amongst different issues, that the allegation towards him was not confirmed, although there was negligence on his half in not acquiring additional directions from the pinnacle workplace. He additionally gave a discovering that the monetary loss was not brought about to the municipal council involved by the strategy of getting the works achieved by means of quotations.

The state of Punjab, nevertheless, handed an order on Could 21, 2013, imposing a ten per cent lower in his pension.

There was no discovering of any loss brought about to the municipal council even within the impugned order. Taking on his plea towards the order, a Single Decide noticed that the appellant was acknowledged to have handed 377 payments and it was his obligation to see whether or not the work was really achieved or it was a strategy to misutilise the fund.

The Decide held that the “manholes” have been lacking in “such a big quantity”, which was not attainable in a single day. The appellant ought to have checked the info to see whether or not the work was really achieved or proven to be achieved.

Permitting the worker’s attraction, the Division Bench asserted it was it not open to the Single Decide to present a discovering of monetary loss to the municipal council on the premise of assumptions and presumptions with out materials on document, Rule 2.2(b) of the Guidelines may very well be invoked provided that there was a discovering by the inquiry officer or the state relating to monetary loss to the federal government.

The rule permitted restoration of pension after it had been sanctioned as a punitive measure to make good the loss to the federal government on account of negligence on an worker’s half.

The Bench concluded restoration from pension couldn’t have been ordered as a punitive measure within the absence of loss. Setting apart the Single Decide’s judgment and the impugned order, the Bench directed the respondents to pay again the deducted quantity with 6 per cent curiosity each year.





Supply hyperlink

Leave comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *.

%d bloggers like this: