In a notable case of administrative overreach, an employee was dismissed from service seven months after his retirement. This led the Punjab and Haryana High Court to rule that the dismissal order was issued “without any jurisdiction” and should be considered “nonest in the eyes of law.”
Court Observations
Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi, addressing a petition against the State of Punjab and other respondents, criticized the authorities for their arbitrary and illegal actions. The court noted that the petitioner had retired on December 31, 2010, and was not a convicted employee at that time, despite ongoing criminal proceedings.
Criminal Conviction Details
Justice Sethi noted that the petitioner was convicted by the Zira Judicial Magistrate First Class on August 1, 2011. His appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court in April 2014, and the conviction was ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court.
Jurisdiction Issue
The core issue for the court was whether the State had jurisdiction to dismiss an employee after retirement. The Bench pointed out that the counsel for the State and other respondents failed to present any rule that would allow for the termination of a retired employee’s service. The court emphasized that without such a rule, the dismissal order lacked jurisdiction and was therefore invalid.
Review of the Dismissal Order
Referring to the dismissal order dated January 21, 2013, Justice Sethi highlighted that the petitioner was dismissed from service based on his conviction date. Given that the petitioner was already retired on August 1, 2011, the dismissal order was deemed arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction.
Pension and Future Orders
Justice Sethi observed that while the petitioner could not refute the possibility of an order under Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rule related to pension after conviction, such matters reflect on the moral standing of the petitioner. The Bench ruled that the petitioner was entitled to arrears of pension with six percent per annum interest. However, the respondents were granted the liberty to issue an order under Rule 2.2 (a) prospectively if they wished to proceed further.
Conclusion
The case concluded with the court invalidating the post-retirement dismissal order and ensuring the petitioner’s entitlement to pension arrears, with interest. The respondents were allowed to take future action under the applicable rules, but only prospectively.
