1988 (11) TMI 346 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules.
2. Validity of the First Information Report (FIR) against Kailash Nath.
3. Validity of the prosecution against Mangal Singh Minhas.

Summary:

1. Interpretation of Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules:
The appeals raised an identical question of law regarding the interpretation of Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules. The High Court had quashed the FIR and prosecution based on its interpretation that Rule 2.2 placed an embargo on initiating judicial proceedings for prosecution of a government servant after four years from the cause of action or event. The Supreme Court found substance in the appellant's submission that Rule 2.2, framed u/s 309 of the Constitution, could not be interpreted to place an embargo on prosecution. The Court held that the rule was intended to regulate conditions of service, not to grant immunity from prosecution. The third proviso to Rule 2.2 was interpreted to mean that the government could not withhold or withdraw pension if judicial proceedings were instituted more than four years after the cause of action or event.

2. Validity of the First Information Report (FIR) against Kailash Nath:
Kailash Nath, an Executive Engineer, was accused of corruption related to the purchase of sign boards in 1979. The FIR was lodged on August 27, 1985, three years after his retirement. The High Court quashed the FIR based on Rule 2.2. The Supreme Court, while agreeing with the appellant's interpretation of Rule 2.2, maintained the High Court's order quashing the FIR on the ground that pursuing the matter in 1988 would be futile due to the stale nature of the case.

3. Validity of the prosecution against Mangal Singh Minhas:
Mangal Singh Minhas, involved in the Industrial Supply Section, faced an FIR lodged on June 19, 1980. The prosecution was delayed due to his attempts to quash the FIR. He retired on September 30, 1983. The High Court quashed the prosecution based on Rule 2.2. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, directing it to reconsider the petition for quashing the prosecution on grounds other than those already considered.

Conclusion:
Criminal Appeal No. 422/88 against Kailash Nath was dismissed, maintaining the quashing of the FIR on different grounds. Criminal Appeal Nos. 423-24/88 against Mangal Singh Minhas were allowed, and the High Court was directed to reconsider the petition for quashing the prosecution.