AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the charge sheet dated 9.1.2014 (Annexure P-3) whereby the earlier charge sheet dated 25.4.2013 has been revised.
Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was working as Junior Engineer (Civil) and was suspended vide order dated 13.8.2012 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner requested that he be reinstated in service as the charge sheet had not been issued within the prescribed time. Petitioner was reinstated in service on 24.12.2012. Petitioner was served the charge sheet dated 25.4.2013 (Annexure P-2). However, the said charge sheet was revised vide Annexure P-3 dated 9.1.2014. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the rules and regulations, the respondents were required to complete the enquiry proceedings within a specified period. However, the respondents were deliberately delaying the departmental action against the petitioner with a view to deny him the benefits of promotion. Petitioner was due to retire next year. There was no provision in the rules to serve revised charge sheet, although, a fresh charge sheet could have been issued to the petitioner.
In the present chase, charge sheet Annexure P-2 was served on the petitioner wherein following allegations were levelled against him:-
Cutting of grass and cleaning of roads:-
(a) Er. Daljeet Singh JE/Civil O/o Senior Executive Engineer/Civil Maintenance and construction division (South Zone), Patiala issued 24 new tenders by violating the works of cutting of grass and cleaning of roads and exceeded his jurisdiction.
(b) Er. Daljeet Singh JE/Civil did not process the tenders as per the rules of the Board/Corporation.
(c) Er. Daljeet Singh JE/Civil opened the tenders and processed the same on 11.4.2011 and 30.9.2011 when he was on official tour out of Sangrur as per the records.
(d) Er. Daljeet Singh JE/Civil did not deposit the surety amount deposited by the contractors at the time of tenders in the account of Board/Corporation, in violation of the rules and regulations of the Board/Corporation, whereas Er. Daljeet Singh has filed a letter to AEE/Sub Urban for the purposes of misleading the corporation.
(e) Er. Daljeet Singh JE/Civil in violation of the rules and regulations of the Board/Corporation, without getting the tenders passed from the competent authority and also being not a competent authority, issued allotments orders and signed agreement with the contractors.
(f) Er. Daljeet Singh JE/Civil in connivance with Er. H.S. Dhaliwal, Sr. Executive Engineer/Civil, Accountant Sh. Dharmender Kumar and contractors made forged entries of work against the illegal allotment order and made fake payments to the contractor and caused financial loss of Rs. 36.64 lacs to the corporation.
(g) Er. Daljeet Singh JE/Civil, Er. H.S. Dhaliwal, Senior Executive Engineer/Civil and others have embezzled amount of Rs. 36.64 lac.
(h) Er. Daljeet Singh JE/Civil in connivance with Er. H.S. Dhaliwal, Senior Executive Engineer/Civil Maintenance and Constructions Division (South Zone) Patiala and Accountant Sh. Dharmender Kumar made an attempt to make fake payment of Rs. 4,52,760/-
Thereafter, the revised charge sheet Annexure P-3 has been issued to the petitioner wherein following allegations have also been levelled against the petitioner:-
(a) Er. Daljeet Singh JE/Civil O/o Senior Executive Engineer/Civil Maintenance and construction division (South Zone), Patiala entered the measurement of fake works in the SMB during the financial year 2011-12 under the aforesaid allotment and intentionally has not given clear description of the works. Er. Daljeet Singh JE/Civil has shown total value of Rs. 47.15 lakhs in the SMB under the works done vide allotment order No. 5/2011-12 dated 31.1.2012 and Er. Daljeet Singh JE/Civil has also verified the measurement of works worth Rs. 47.15 lakhs as AE/Civil. Whereas Sh. Krishan Kumar Singla Contractor, who was allotted this work, he submitted bill or Rs. 33.43 lacs only for the work done by him. From the perusal of the bill submitted by the contractor, it is established prima facie that Er. Daljeet Singh JE/Civil has made entries in the SMB worth Rs. 13.72 lacs for fake works. Apart from that the committee constituted by the Punjab State Corporation Ltd. physically verified the work done by the contractors on the various sub-stations and it was found by the committee that work of Rs. 21,33,252.00 has only been got done from the contractor at the spot. In this way it has also been proved that the contractor has submitted extra bill i.e. 33,43,000.00-21,33,252.00 = 12,09,748.00. Therefore, it is proved that Er. Daljeet Singh JE by entering work of Rs. 47.15 lacs in the SMB has entered fake works amounting to Rs. 25,81,748.00 against the actual work done of Rs. 21,33,252.00. From this it is clear that there is no possibility of suspicion that Er. Daljeet Singh JE has made an attempt to embezzle Rs. 25,81,748.00.
(b) Er. Daljeet Singh JE/Civil intentionally has not given clear description of works in the measurement books worth Rs. 47.15 lacs under the allotment order No. 5/2011-12 dated 31.1.2012 so that entries made by him in the measurement books neither could be identified nor could be enquired.
(c) Er. Daljeet Singh JE/Civil kept on putting of supplying of documents to the technical audit so that irregularities/misconducts committed by him could not be identified.
(d) Er. Daljeet Singh JE/Civil appended different signatures on seals of AE/Civil, JE/Civil and draftsman on measurement books, bills, estimates etc. so as to mislead the checking agencies and also that it does not become clear from these documents regarding the charge given to one person for different posts.
At this stage, petitioner will get an opportunity to put up his defence in the enquiry proceedings. In case any document has not been supplied to the petitioner, he can ask the department that the same be supplied to him to enable him to put up his defence in the enquiry proceedings. There is no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revised charge sheet could not be served to the petitioner. In fact, as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner could have been served a fresh charge sheet. In case fresh charge sheet could be served on the petitioner, then it makes no difference after the petitioner has been served the revised charge sheet. It appears that due to some inadvertence, all the allegations against the petitioner could not be incorporated in the earlier charge sheet and due to this reason, revised charge sheet has been issued.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
However, respondents are directed to conclude the enquiry proceedings expeditiously.