Limitation on criminal proceedings under service rules led to quashing of a stale prosecution against a retired employee.

Rule 2.2(b)(3) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-II, though located in the pension chapter, was treated as a valid rule made under Article 309 and as barring the institution of judicial proceedings, including criminal proceedings, if the alleged event was more than four years old when the complaint or police report led to cognizance. The Court held that this limitation protected a pensioner from prolonged exposure to prosecution as well as regulating pensionary consequences. Because the prosecution was launched long after retirement and after substantial delay in a matter concerning explanation of assets and income, the proceedings were regarded as stale and prejudicial to the defence. The criminal proceedings were therefore quashed as an abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings against a retired Government servant for an alleged offence committed during service were barred by the four-year limitation prescribed in Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-II, and whether continuation of the prosecution in the facts of the case amounted to an abuse of the process of court.

Analysis: Rule 2.2(b)(3) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-II, though placed in the pension chapter, was treated as a legislative rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The rule was read as imposing a bar on the institution of judicial proceedings, including criminal proceedings, if the event complained of was more than four years old on the date the police report or complaint was made and cognizance was taken. The provision was held to serve a dual purpose: regulating pensionary consequences and protecting a pensioner from being kept under prolonged threat of prosecution. The Court also noted that the prosecution had been initiated after a substantial delay, long after retirement, in a matter requiring the accused to explain assets and sources of income, where delay would prejudice the defence and render the proceeding stale.

Conclusion: The limitation bar applied, and the continued prosecution was unjustified; the criminal proceedings were quashed in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A service rule enacted under Article 309 may validly bar institution of criminal proceedings after a prescribed period, and where prosecution is launched beyond that period and is otherwise stale, the proceedings can be quashed as an abuse of process.

---