TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (9) TMI 361
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dis disproportionate to his known source of income. The petitioner was allowed to retire from service on October 31, 1979, without the case registered against him being any where close being presented in a Court of law. Nearly 4¼ years after his retirement, prosecution was launched against the petitioner on January 23, 1984, inasmuch as the challan or the police report was put in before the special Judge, Patiala, for taking cognizance of the matter. The petitioner, when put up for trial, raised the question of limitation and pleaded that the trial was barred in view of rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-II where under limitation of four years had been prescribed computable from the date of the event which was spelled out as an offence. Shri R.L. Anand, the learned counsel Judge, Patiala, by a detailed order, repelled the objection which has given rise to the present petition. 2. Mr. K.P. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to the relevant rule 2.2. of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume-II, which figures in the chapter ear-marked for 'pensions' and Chapter-II thereof, wherein rule 2. 2 occurs, is meant for 'O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titution. That it is so is beyond challenge. That these rules came into operation after the enforcement of the Constitution is also beyond challenge. That they are legislative in character is also beyond challenge in view of B.S. Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 561 and in particular for the observations made by the Supreme Court, which are reproduced below :- "That the Governor possesses legislative power under our Constitution is controvertible and, therefore, there is nothing unique about the Governor's power under the proviso to Article 309 being in the nature of a legislative power. By Article 158, the Governor of a State is a part of the legislature of the State. And the most obvious exercise of legislative power by the Governor is the power given to him by Article 213 to promulgate Ordinances when the legislature is not in Session. Under that Article, he exercises a power of the same kind which the legislature normally exercises, the power to make laws. The heading of the Chapter IV of Part VI of the Constitution in which Article 213 occurs, is significant: "Legislative Power of the Governor". The power of the Governor under the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of the availability of limitation, yet the intention of the Governor in providing limitation in the rule, as it is clear, was to serve a dual purpose. And the purpose was, as disclosed earlier, not to put the pensioner to trial beyond the specified period. And if timely brought to trial on a grave misconduct or negligence, pension could be withheld or withdrawn on the establishment of the charge. The rule thus serves both purposes and I hold it accordingly. 8. The matter can be viewed from another angle also. The Prevention of Corruption Act was enacted in the year 1947. Clause (e) to sub-section (1) of Section 5, however, was inserted in the year 1964. When the original Act came, its object was for the more effective prevention of bribery and corruption, as goes the preamble Section 5(1) given out a list of criminal misconducts committed by a public servant, though one provided in clause (e), regarding property in possession of a public servant, which he cannot satisfactorily account, was added to the list of criminal misconducts at a time when the CSR Rules were in force. There is no period of limitation prescribed in the prevention of Corruption Act, but a trial thereunder is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....L.J. 984, B.N. Gangoo v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1983(1) C.L.R. 301, where prosecutions launched after a considerable delay, or even when launched, their delayed continuance, was given a nail by various High Courts anu in the aforesaid two Supreme Courts cases the view of the respective High Courts was affirmed. Those cases are on their own facts and cannot on the arithmetic of passage of years as a matter of law term any prosecution to be stale or delayed. To that list, however, the instant case too can be added on its own facts. Now here, to recall the allegations against the petitioner, he was found on September 6, 1975, in possession of movable and immovable property which he could not satisfactorily account for from his known sources of income. The act complained of had been committed and the F.I.R. had been lodged by an officer of the Vigilance Department. It would be legitimate to assume that before the F.I.R. was recorded some vigilance enquiry must have been undertaken as is the normal procedure in that department. If none was undertaken it makes matter worse for the officer acted with no sense of responsibility. It did not in any case require nearly 8½ years to ....