9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enquire into the complaints and ultimately a First Information Report was lodged on August 27, 1985 against the respondent under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the meantime, the respondent had retired from the post of Executive Engineer with effect from October 31, 1982. The aforesaid First Information Report was challenged by the respondent in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal miscellaneous No. 5837-M/85 on the ground that the same having been lodged about three years after his retirement and about six years after the event of purchase of sign-boards in 1979 was in the teeth of Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II and consequently was liable to be quashed. The plea raised by the respondent found favour with the High Court which relying on an earlier decision of that Court in Des Raj Singhal v. State of Punjab, [1986] P.L.R. 82 quashed the First Information Report by its order dated February 12, 1986. Mangal Singh Minhas, the respondent in Criminal Appeal Nos. 423-24/1988, was posted in the Industrial Supply Section of the Directorate of Industries where various types of raw materials including wax and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence during the period of his service, including service rendered upon re- employment after retirement. Provided that: (1) ... ... ... (2) ... ... ... (3) No such judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution: PG NO 916 Explanation: For the purpose of his rule. (a) ... ... ... (b) a judicial proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted (i) in the case of a criminal proceedings on the date on which the complaint or report of the police officer on which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made; ....... There is no dispute that Punjab Civil Service Rules have been framed by the Governor in exercise of the power conferred on him by Article 309 of the Constitution and that Rule 2.2 occurs in chapter II of Volume II of the Rules dealing with Ordinary Pension . It has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that keeping in view the scope of Article 309 as also the purpose of Rule 2.2, the said rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till his retirement and even beyond it, in matters like pension etc. In the normal course what falls within the purview of the term conditions of service may be classified as salary or wages including subsistance allowance during suspension, the periodical increments, pay-scale, leave, provident fund, gratuity, confirmation, promotion, seniority, tenure or termination of service, compulsory or premature retirement, superannuation, pension, changing the age of superannuation, deputation and disciplinary proceedings. Whether or not a government servant should be prosecuted for an offence committed by him obviously cannot be treated to be something pertaining to conditions of service. Making a provision that a government servant, even if he is guilty of grave misconduct or negligence which constitutes an offence punishable either under the Penal Code or Prevention of Corruption Act or an analogous law should be granted immunity from such prosecution after the lapse of a particular period so as to provide incentive for efficient work would not only be against public policy but would also be counter productive. It is likely to be an incentive not for efficient work but for committi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to be found in the main rule 2.2 but in the third proviso to the said rule. It is the third proviso which enjoins that no judicial proceedings. if not instituted while the officer was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years before such institution. The scope of a proviso is well settled. In M/s Ram Narain Sons Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax and others, [1955]2 SCR 483, it was held: It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that a proviso to a particular provision of statute only embraces the-field which is covered by the main provision. It carves out an exception to the main provision to which it has been enacted as a proviso and to no other. The same view was reiterated in Abdul Jabar Butt v. State of Jammu Kashmir, [1957] SCR 51 where it was held that a proviso must be considered with relation to the principle matter to which it stands as a proviso. PG NO 919 With regard to scope of a proviso, it was urged by the learned counsel for the respondents relying on the decision of this Court in Ishverlal Thakorelal Alma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntemplated by the proviso are fulfilled. This purpose can be achieved if the said proviso by adopting the rule of reading down is interpreted to mean that even if a government servant is prosecuted and punished in judicial proceedings instituted in respect of cause of action which arose or an event which took place more than four years PG NO 920 before such institution the government will not be entitled to exercise the right conferred on it by the substantive provision contained in clause (b) with regard to pension of such a government servant. The word Such in the beginning of the third proviso also supports this interpretation. At this place, it may be pointed out that an analogous provision contained in Article 351-A of the Madras Pension Code came up for consideration before the Madras High Court in P. V. Venkatavardan v. The State of Tamil Nadu by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti- corruption, Vellore, [1979] 23 MLJ (Crl) 275. Article 35 1-A in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of this case is reproduced hereunder: 351-A. Government further reserve to themselves the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether perm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer found guilty of misconduct or a criminal offence and made an exhaustive provision for departmental inquiries. Rule i6.38 laid down the guidelines to be followed by the Superintendent of Police in dealing with a complaint about the commission of a criminal offence by a police officer in connection with his official relations with the public. The respondent Charan Singh in that case was a police officer and was convicted and sentenced of an offence under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. His conviction as well as sentence was set aside and he was acquitted by the High Court on the ground that there was non compliance with the provisions of Rule 16.38. Setting aside the order of acquittal and remanding the case to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law, this Court held that Rule 16.38 was not designed to be a condition precedent to the launching of a prosecution in a Criminal Court; it was in the nature of instructions to the Department and was not meant to be of the nature of sanction or permission for a prosecution, nor could it overrid the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Prevention of Corruption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal right to speedy trial is to be whittled down into a mere pious wish, its enforceability in Court must at least be indicated by an outer limit to which an investigation and the trial in a criminal prosecution may ordinarily extend. PG NO 923 We are informed that special leave has been granted by this Court against the aforesaid judgment and its correctness is thus sub judice. That apart, even if the soundness of the principle that there should be speedy trial may not be disputed, the said principle cannot be invoked by the respondents in support of their interpretation of the third proviso to clause (b) of Rule 2.2 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution whose purpose, as already indicated above, is not to place an embargo on prosecution. It is always open to quash a prosecution on the ground of unexplained unconscionable delay in investigation and prosecution on the facts of a given case. It was then urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that the third proviso to clause (b) of Rule 2.2 is in the nature of a beneficent legislation and in case of doubt has to be interpreted in favour of the person for whose benefit the Rule has been framed. In our opinion, k ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... igh Court quashing the First Information Report as against Kailash Nath, respondent in criminal appeal No. 422 of 1988, deserves to be maintained though on a different ground. The facts of the case, with regard to Mangal Singh Minhas, respondent in Criminal Appeal Nos. 423-24 of 1988, however, are different. In this case, as seen above, First Information Report was promptly lodged on June 19, 1980. The filing of challan, however, was delayed on account of the steps taken by the respondent for getting the First Information Report quashed. He retired about three years after lodging of the First Information Report and during the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court for quashing of the said First Information Report. Since the High Court quashed the prosecution of Mangal Singh Minhas on one ground alone based on its earlier decision in the case of Des Raj singhal and did not consider other grounds, if any, that may have been raised by him for quashing of the prosecution, we are of the opinion that after setting aside the orders appealed against in this case, the High Court should be required to decide afresh the petition mde by Mangal Singh Minhas for quashing of the prosecu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
