Bhagi Rath vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

V.K. Sharma, J.—The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide paras 7(a), (b), (c) and (d):

(a) The imp0ugned orders annexure PD, PF & PH passed by the incompetent disciplinary authority, appellate & reversionary authorities be set aside & quashed. The enquiry report be also declared null & void.

(b) The Respondents be directed to restore the annual increments of the applicant,

(c) the pension of the applicant be also re-fixed accordingly;

(d) the arrears of pension with interest be also allowed from the date of retirement.

In reply, the Respondents have taken the following stand vide paras 6(i) to (iii) and (vii):

(i) The averments in this para are contrary to the facts brought on record during the course of enquiry. It is submitted that the applicant w as posted as Lines Officer at Polcie Lines, Keylong during the year 1994. It was revealed that he kept with him cash amounting to Rs. 26,67,157/-undisbursed for a long period from September, 1994 to 25.3.95. It was found that the applicant delayed the payment of GPF advance amounting to Rs. 45,000/- in respect of Constable Tara Chand No. 47 who was posted at Police Post Koksar, The GPF of said Constable was drawn in the month of November, 1994 and was disbursed by the applicant in two installments of Rs. 20,000/- and 25,000/- each in the month of April, 1995 and in July, 1995 respectively. It also came on record that the applicant disbursed the pay of Constable Vippan Chand after a period of 10 months of its drawl. The applicant�s explanation that this money was used for official duty and advances for official duty is altogether unjustifiable. The money which included pay and GPF advance of the police personnel could not be utilized for any other purpose such as advances.

(ii) In reply to contents of this para it is submitted that when the matter of non disbursement of GPF and pay to the police personnel came to notice of the authorities, a regular departmental enquiry was ordered against the applicant. The enquiry was conducted in accordance with the Police rules. As per the rules the applicant was served with the summary of allegations and subsequently the PWs were examined. The applicant was given opportunity to cross-examine the PWs. After examination of the PWs Charge sheet was served upon the applicant and the applicant was directed to submit the list of defence witnesses and to submit in brief as to what he wants to prove from them. The applicant submitted list of three defence witnesses namely ASI Beli Ram of Chamba District and Driver Piar Chand and Driver Banku Ram. The applicant did not submit as to what he wants to prove from these witnesses. ASI Beli Ram and Driver Banku Ram had already been examined as PWs and the applicant had proper opportunity to cross examine them whereas Constable Piar Chand was transferred from Lahaul Spiti District and the Enquiry officer in his wisdom did not see any reason to examine as a defence witness. No prejudice has been caused to the applicant by not examining the above named defence witnesses. It is wrong to contend that the enquiry officer acted in arbitrary & biased manner.

(iii) The contents of this para are wrong and hence denied. The applicant was transferred from Lahaul Spiti District to Kullu District where he joined on 25.9.95. The departmental enquiry file d duly completed was also sent to S.P. Kullu (Respondent No. 4) by the Respondent No. 5. As per Rule the Superintendent of Police is appointing authority vis-a-vis the punishing authority in respect of the Sub-Inspector of Police. Therefore, consequent upon the joining in Kullu District by the applicant, the Respondent No. 4 became the disciplinary authority in respect of the applicant. Thus the show cause notice dated 15.10.1996 was rightly issued by Respondent No. 4 but the applicant was given sufficient time to submit reply to show cause notice but the applicant failed to submit reply till 7.2.1997 whereas the reply was required submitted within a week.

(vii) In reply to this para it is submitted that the charges against the applicant were that he did not disbursed the GPF advance amounting to Rs. 45,000/- of Constable Tara Chand till July, 1995 which was drawn in Novemebr, 1994. Similarly the pay of Constable Vipan Chand was disbursed after 10 months which fact has been admitted by the applicant himself in the O.A. The applicant also failed to produce the cashbook and other record despite repeated directions of his superior officers. This act of the applicant amounted to misconduct for which the enquiry was rightly held against the applicant. The allegations against the applicant were of serious nature which were duly proved and thus the applicant was punished accordingly. It is wrong for the applicant to say that the charge of making delayed payment of GPF and salary to the concerned persons is not a serious charge. It is also wrong to contend that the applicant has unblemished service record. Infact the applicant was awarded punishment of censure in the year 1976 for willful absence and again censured in the year 1992 for disobedience of orders. There is no violation of Article 14 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Thus the applicant has no cause of action to file and maintain the present O.A.

In view of the above reply, in case the Petitioner still has any surviving grievance, he shall be free to make a detailed representation supported by documents, if any, along with copy of this judgment to Respondents/competent authority within two months from today, who shall consider the same and take a final decision in the matter within next two months in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, if so desired.

The petition, as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of.