K.K. Jain vs Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the orders dated 1.4.2003 (Annexure P-8/1) and 14.8.2007 (Annexure P-10) whereby punishment of censure and recovery of Rs. 1,58,802/- was imposed on him and the orders dated 15.1.2008 (Annexure P-12) and 19.9.2011 (Annexure P-15) whereby the appeals filed by the petitioner against the punishment order, were dismissed.

Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined with the respondent-board as Junior Engineer on 19.12.1973. On 28.6.2000, the Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (for short ''PUDA) constituted a fact finding committee for inspection of the site. The committee submitted its report dated 3.7.2000 (Annexure P-2). Similarly the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA vide Annexure P-3/1 ordered fact finding enquiries pertaining to the year 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. The fact finding committee submitted its report Annexure P-3/2 dated 7.7.2000. Charge sheet dated 22.12.2000 (Annexure P-4) was issued to the petitioner with regard to maintenance expenditure for shrubs/trees pertaining to the year 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 14.1.2003 (Annexure P-6) wherein it was held that the charges against the petitioner and his co-employees stood proved. Punishing authority passed the order dated 1.4.2003 (Annexure P-8/1) imposing punishment of censure and recovery of Rs. 1,58,802/- against the petitioner. Orders were also passed against the co-employees of the petitioner. First appellate authority vide its order dated 12.1.2007 remanded the matter back to the punishing authority for passing a fresh order after giving personal hearing to the petitioner. The punishing authority vide order dated 14.8.2007 (Annexure P-10) reiterated its earlier order. Thereafter, the first appellate authority vide order dated 15.1.2008 (Annexure P-12) rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. Petitioner preferred second appeal Annexure P-13 on 12.2.2008. Thereafter, petitioner filed CWP No. 19303 of 2009 challenging the punishment order as well as the order passed by the first appellate authority. However, vide order dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure P-14), the said petition was disposed of with a direction to the Chairman, PUDA to consider and dispose of the second appeal, pending before it within three months. Thereafter, the second appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 19.9.2011 (Annexure P-15). Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the enquiry officer had failed to take in consideration that petitioner had worked as Divisional Engineer (Civil), PUDA, Patiala during the period from January 1997 to April 1998. Therefore, petitioner could not have been penalized to repay the amount in question for two years. Recovery could have been effected from the petitioner with regard to period he had remained on duty.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that six employees were served with charge sheets and recoveries were ordered to be effected from them as per their involvement. The amount sought to be recovered from the six employees, was not the same. Rather, from the petitioner, recovery was to the tune of Rs. 1,58,802/- whereas from K.B. Passi, Divisional Engineer (Civil), recovery was to the tune of Rs. 3,78,956/-. Recovery from N.S. Kahlon, Divisional Engineer (Civil) was to the tune of Rs. 88,713/- whereas from Paramjit Singh, Divisional Engineer (Civil), recovery was to the tune of Rs. 29,571/-, from Rajinder Singh, Sub Divisional Engineer, recovery was to the tune of Rs. 6,56,041/- and from Manjeet Singh, Junior Engineer, recovery was to the tune of Rs. 29,571/-. Petitioner had been given full opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings.

The scope of judicial review regarding interference with punishment order is very limited. The jurisdiction of this Court is only to see the method/manner of awarding punishment. The Court is only concerned with the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority. If the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority is according to rules and natural justice, then no interference with the punishment order is called for. This Court cannot go into the merits of the case. In case, the finding of the Inquiry Officer is based on some evidence, then this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence or weigh the same like the Appellate Authority. So long as there is some evidence in support of the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. Some defect in the inquiry has to be pointed out before this Court can interfere with the punishment order. Further more, if defect is pointed out then the delinquent employee has to show as to what prejudice has been caused to him on account of the said defect.

In the present case, charge sheet Annexure P-4 was served on the petitioner wherein it was specifically mentioned that petitioner was deployed at Head Office, PUDA, Patiala from January 1997 to 30.4.1998. Petitioner had submitted inflated estimates. The entire expenditure for the period 1997-1998 had occurred during the tenure of petitioner and during this period, PUDA had suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs. 2,56,766/-. Petitioner had duly participated in the enquiry proceedings. A perusal of the enquiry report Annexure P-6 reveals that the enquiry officer was conscious of the fact that so far as the petitioner is concerned, his period of posting was from January 1997 to 30.4.1998. The enquiry report was given against the petitioner and five other employees namely Paramjit Singh, Nirmal Singh Kahlon, K.B. Passi, Rajinder Singh and Manjit Singh. Their period of posting was also in the notice of the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer, after going through the material on record, held that all the charges stood proved against the petitioner and his co-employees.

A perusal of the punishment order Annexure P-10 reveals that so far as the petitioner is concerned, it was ordered that recovery of Rs. 1,58,802/- be made from him whereas so far as K.B. Passi is concerned, it was ordered that Rs. 3,78,956/- be recovered from him. So far as Nirmal Singh Kahlon is concerned, it was ordered that Rs. 88,713 be recovered from him. So far as Paramjit Singh is concerned, it was ordered that Rs. 29,571/- be recovered from him. So far as Manjit Singh is concerned, it was ordered that Rs. 29,571/- be recovered from him. Thus, from this it is evident that recovery was sought to be effected from the defaulters as per their involvement. Recovery of the same amount was not ordered to be effected from all the delinquent employees. Rather, recovery of separate amounts was ordered to be effected from each employee. The appellate authorities have also dismissed the appeals by considering all the record available on the file. There is no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that recovery of higher amount had been ordered to be made from the petitioner, although, he was not posted at Patiala for the entire two years in question. The enquiry officer was duly conscious of the fact that petitioner was posted at Patiala from January 1997 to 30.4.1998 and the punishing authority has also ordered recovery of the amount as per the default/involvement of each employee.

No ground for interference by this Court is made out.

Dismissed.