Bharat Bhushan vs State of Haryana

M.M. Kumar, J.—The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 19.7.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that there are justifiable reasons for imposing 5 % cut in the pension of the appellant. He was proceeded against under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987. The Enquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner-appellant. However, the Punishing Authority recorded a note of disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Consequently, penalty of 5% cut in pension was imposed on 30.3.2010. The memorial filed against the said order was rejected on 28.2.2011. The basic reason for disagreement recorded by the learned Chief Secretary in his order dated 10.12.2008 (P.5) is that the charge against the appellant was that he came in Public Works Branch on 19.6.2006 after 5.00 PM and took away some important documents pertaining to his relieving orders, disciplinary action against him and sanction of medical leave, his casual leave account and attendance register for the year 2006. The Chief Secretary dis-agreed with the Enquiry Report by recording following three reasons:

(i)It is not obligatory in every case to hold a preliminary enquiry. The sole purpose of the preliminary enquiry is to decide whether or not prima facie case is made out against the employee for proceeding against him. Particularly, in the instant case, there was no need of preliminary enquiry because missing documents pertain to Shri Bharat Bhushan, the delinquent and after 5.00 PM Chowkidar is responsible for all record and office articles. There was no reason to disbelieve the statement of the Chowkidar and the then Superintendent, B & R (Works) Branch.

(ii) I find no substance in the plea of the Inquiry Officer that the Chowkidar was not aware about the name of Sh. Bharat Bhushan, Asstt. Shri Sajjan Kumar,Chowkidar saw Shri Bharat Bhushan in the Branch on 19.6.2006 after office hours. He was searching papers from the table of the Superintendent, B & R (Works) and had also talked to him. Thus he knew Shri Bharat Bhushan by face and when the Superintendent enquired about the missing documents he told a person, came in Branch after 5.00 P.M. Later on, he recognized Shri Bharat Bhushan and informed in writing. Missing documents related to Shri Bharat Bhushan. He was marked absent in the attendance register and disciplinary process was going on against him. After office hours only Chowkidar remains in the office, that is why the plea of Inquiry Officer that no other person had seen Shri Bharat Bhushan stealing documents has no substance. So, there was no reason to disbelieve the Chowkidar. The plea taken by the Inquiry Officer that during his leave Shri Bharat Bhushan could not have come to the office, is also not tenable because he was not admitted in any hospital and he was free to go anywhere during his leave period. I also find no substance in the plea of the Inquiry Officer that there was personal enmity between Shri Azad Singh Narwal, Superintendent and Shri Bharat Bhushan. But it was only because Shri Bharat Bhushan had stolen documents from the custody of Branch Superintendent and taken the plea just to save himself from initiation of disciplinary action against him.

(iii) It is correct that on 19.6.2006 when the incident occurred, Shri Bharat Bhushan, Assistant was not posted in B & R (Works) Branch, but the plea taken by Shri Bharat Bhushan, Assistant during enquiry that being official he can visit any branch any time also has no substance at all.

In view of the above, the charges against Shri Bharat Bhushan stand proved in the absence of any contrary evidence produced or arguments advanced in the Inquiry proceedings.

Accordingly statement of Sajjan Kumar, Chowkidar was accepted and the rationale adopted by the Inquiry Officer that employee during his leave could not have visited the office was rejected as the appellant was not in the hospital. He was free to go any where during his leave period. The charge of stealing document from the custody of the Branch Superintendent accordingly stood proved. The dissenting note alongwith show cause notice was served on the appellant and thereafter the punishment was inflicted.

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length and find that there is no legal infirmity in the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. The cut in pension after retirement is absolutely justified. No interference is called for. Dismissed.