HC slaps Rs 1 lakh fine on Punjab for charge-sheeting retd engineer: ‘avoidable' litigation, wasted court time

Indian Express

2 days ago

Slapping a penalty of Rs 1 lakh on the Punjab government for pursuing what it called 'avoidable' and 'legally untenable' litigation that wasted court's time, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed disciplinary proceedings against a former executive engineer by the state Public Works Department (B&R) four years after retirement.
A single bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu held that the charge-sheet issued by the Principal Secretary, PWD (B&R), on July 9, 2021, was 'wholly barred' by Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II. 'The impugned charge-sheet cannot survive the test of law and has to be quashed on anvil of Rule 2.2(b),' the court said, pointing out that the alleged lapses dated back to 2008–2010, more than 11 years before the issuance of the notice and well beyond the permissible four-year limit for post-retirement proceedings.
Chief Justice Nagu strongly criticised the Punjab government for forcing retired executive engineer Paramjit Singh to litigate to vindicate his rights. 'The precious time of this Court has been wasted in adjudicating this avoidable piece of litigation, which the petitioner was compelled to initiate due to cause given by the respondents in blatant violation of law,' Justice Nagu observed.
24 years of service, charge-sheet after retirement
Appearing for the retired officer, Advocate Sarthak Gupta said Paramjit joined the Punjab PWD (B&R) as sub divisional engineer in July 1993 and rose to the post of executive engineer in January 2008. He retired on December 31, 2017, after 24 years of what he described as unblemished service. Four years later, the 2021 charge-sheet accused him of multiple lapses in handling land acquisition cases during his tenure as executive engineer in Construction Division No. 1, Ferozepur.
The allegations stemmed from a long-standing dispute over land in village Mohan Ke Uttar, Ferozepur. Paramjit was accused of submitting an incorrect report, failing to verify revenue records, and recommending re-acquisition of land without due diligence, allegedly causing a loss of Rs 1.83 crore to the state. The case arose from a civil suit filed in 2000 by one Gurmit Singh, decreed in 2006, which directed compensation or the return of possession. Appeals by the department were dismissed in 2007.
Advocate Gupta contended that Paramjit had acted in good faith and with due diligence, repeatedly seeking records from the Land Acquisition Officer, Jalandhar, the Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur, and other authorities. Some of these records, the lawyer claimed, dated back to 1965 and were missing or not made available until 2020. Based on the Jamabandis (land records) available at the time, Paramjit recommended acquiring Khasra No. 116, akin to Khasra No. 117, and prepared a draft notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was duly approved by competent authorities, his counsel contended.
Advocate Gupta further contended that after Paramjit's transfer in April 2010, the acquisition process continued under his successor and higher officials. In a 2011 meeting, it was reaffirmed that Khasra No. 117 had not been acquired in 1962, prompting proceedings for the acquisition of both parcels. It was only in 2019 that official records surfaced showing the land had, in fact, been acquired in 1962 and compensation already paid, leading to recovery suits filed by the department in 2020.
Terming the case 'de hors the very basic object of Litigation Policy of the State of Punjab,' the court noted that the government had filed 'an affidavit running in 56 pages opposing the claim of petitioner tooth and nail.' This conduct, Justice Nagu said, was 'nothing short of misusing the judicial process.'
The court imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on the State, directing it to deposit the amount in the Poor Patients Fund at PGIMER, Chandigarh, and gave the government liberty to recover the sum 'from the salary of the authority issuing the impugned charge-sheet' , in this case, the Principal Secretary, PWD (B&R).
Chief Justice Nagu pointed out, Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, 'places a complete bar for issuance of a charge-sheet when issued after the date of superannuation in regard to any incident which took place four years before the issuance.'