AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner, white posted as Reader in the Court of District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, instituted the instant writ petition in the year 2010 impugning the order dated 8.10.2010, Annexure P3, passed by the Enquiry Officer whereby he has been proceeded against exparte in a regular departmental enquiry (RBT Case No. 02/10). Further prayer is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondents to grant to the petitioner an opportunity to enable him to defend himself and to lead his evidence in the enquiry. Shorn of all unnecessary details, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 28.4.2007 by the District & Sessions Judge, Jalandhar on the following precise article of charge:
Whereby you have purchased a residential plot during the year 1994 and you have entered into agreement with Sh. Puran Singh S/o Sh. Arjan Singh R/o Vill. Bath Tehsil Tarn Taran District Amritsar and disposed of your one house measuring 7 marlas in the sum of Rs. 31000/- and thereafter purchased a plot in the locality of Friends Co-operative House Building Society Jalandhar from Smt. Mohinder Kaur daughter of S. Jagat Singh R/o Bhagowal District Hoshiarpur at present Vill. Khambra Tehsil Jalandhar in the sum of Rs. 85500/- without getting the prior sanction from the proper Authority which is the Violation of Rule 18(2) of the Govt. Conduct Rules 1966. That your above said act is liable for disciplinary action, as provided under rule 12.2 of Punjab Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service) Rules 1997 read with Pb. Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970.
The reply submitted to the charge sheet having been found to be unsatisfactory, Enquiry Officer was duly appointed. It is during such enquiry proceedings initiated in terms of issuance of charge sheet dated 28.4.2007 that the impugned order dated 8.10.2010 at Annexure P3 has been passed by the Enquiry Officer directing exparte proceedings to the detriment of the petitioner.
On behalf of the respondents, the impugned order is sought to be justified by stating that the petitioner was not cooperating in the enquiry proceedings and had resorted to dilatory tactics. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the Enquiry Officer has chosen to disbelieve certain prescription slips/certificate of the Doctor that had been relied upon by the petitioner to justify non-appearance in the proceedings.
During the course of arguments, the petitioner who is appearing in person would refer to the zimni orders dated 16.7.2010, 31.7.2010 and 4.9.2010 to contend that the enquiry proceedings on each of the afore-noticed dates had been adjourned on the asking of the Department. That apart, the petitioner would advert to the documents placed on record at Annexure P2 (colly) which includes a certificate issued from the Office of Civil Surgeon, Jalandhar certifying the petitioner to be suffering from PIVD with LCS at L5S1 level and wherein he has been advised to continue treatment at the hands of the Ortho and Neuro Surgeon.
Having heard the petitioner in person and Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate for the respondents, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by granting to the petitioner an opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings. Such decision would be in conformity with the rules of natural justice, equity and fair play.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 8.10.2010 at Annexure P3 is set aside. The designated Enquiry Officer is directed to proceed with the enquiry in which the petitioner shall be associated. Suffice it to observe that the enquiry proceedings shall be conducted and concluded by strictly observing the rules of natural justice as also following the procedure entailed under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. Petition allowed in the aforesaid terms.