Madan Lal vs Punjab State Electricity Board and Another

M.R. Agnihotri, J.—Petitioner Madan Lal, Revenue Accountant, working in the Punjab State Electricity Board has filed this Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India inter alid praying for the quashing of orders dated 1st August, 1975 (Annexure P/11), and dated 19th September, 1979 (Annexure P/14) and also the order dated 19th September, 1979 (Annexure P/15) with which the statement of charges (Annexure P/16) and the statement of allegations (Annexure P/17) had been forwarded to the Petitioner, serving him a charge-sheet "under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1972, or the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1971." At the motion stage, further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned charge-sheet had been stayed by this Court, on 17th December, 1979, to which full seven years have elapsed.

The grievance of the writ Petitioner is that while he was working as Revenue Accountant, a complaint was made against him on the basis whereof a case was registered u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,--vide F.I.R. No. 25, dated 5th February, 1970, at Police Station. Siri Hargobindpur. However, after keeping the case pending for more than two years, it was filed on 14th February, 1972, under the orders of the Ilaqa Magistrate. Thereafter, on 3rd May, 1973, the Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet consisting of four charges and a statement of allegations in support thereof. After obtaining the reply to the charge-sheet on 23rd August. 1973, the Deputy Secretary of the Punjab State Electricity Board was appointed as Inquiry Officer to hold an inquiry into the matter. The said inquiry was accordingly held and a report was submitted to the Chief Accounts Officer of the Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. Since the report was in favour of the Petitioner and no charge stood proved against him, Respondent No. 2 (Chief Accounts Officer) ordered reinstatement of the Petitioner in service,--vide his order dated 25th April, 1975 (Annexure P/9). So far as the question of payment or otherwise of the arrears of salary in addition to the subsistence allowance which the Petitioner had already been disbursed during the period of suspension is concerned, decision was to be taken by the competent authority later on. This decision was ultimately communicated to the Petitioner on 1st August, 1975, intimating that he shall not be paid anything more than the suspension allowance already drawn by him. Against this order of 1st August, 1975, the Petitioner submitted his representations on 12th August, 1975 and 12th February, 1976. But on 7th December, 1979, the Petitioner was intimated that the original memorandum of charge-sheet dated 18th May, 1973 (Annexure P/4) along with the statement of charges (Annexure P/5) and the statement of allegations (Annexure P/6), had been withdrawn, and a fresh charge-sheet-was issued to him. It is these fresh communications dated 19th-September, 1979, along with statement of allegations, charge-sheets; etc., Annexure P/14 to P/17, which are the subject-matter of the, present -writ petition.

The. principal submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. R.P. Bali, is that once the matter had already been finally, decided and.previous charge-sheet had been withdrawn, the same. could not be reopened, much less without any fresh material on, the record. In nutshell his argument is that in applying the principle, of constructive res judicata; the matter should be permitted to assume finality. The second submission, of course, is with regard to his grievance about the payment of arrears of salary which had been withheld by the Punjab State Electrlelty Board by, confining.,the same to the substance allowance alone during the period of suspension. Broadly, the claim has been founded on the principles of natural justice, which, according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, have not been observed in the present case.

Though the case has been contested by the Punjab State Electricity Board by filing the written statement, yet the factual position have been almost admitted. In para 9 of the written statement, it has been admitted that the criminal case was received back from the Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, on 24th November, 1971, as untraceable due to non-availability of sufficient evidence for filing the challan in the Court. It is also admitted in para 4 thereof that the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 26th February, 1975 and the Petitioner was reinstated thereafter. However, reopening of the matter is sought to be justified by taking the plea in para 20(a) of the written statement that if due to any technical mistake, the charge-sheet is defective, the employer can withdrawn the same and on the same cause of action issue the second charge-sheet after correcting the mistake. Therefore, the doctrine of constructive res judicata has no application in the matter.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the record, I am of the view that the action of. Respondents is wholly arbitrary and without any legal justification. The gravamen of the charge against the Petitioner in the present impugned charge-sheet, the earlier charge-sheet and the First Information Report lodged against him more than fifteen years ago, is the same. Since the criminal case was kept pending for two years at the investigation stage and no challan could be filed, and the departmental inquiry duly held by the Deputy Secretary of the Punjab State Electricity Board on the basis of the earlier charge-sheet, did not procure any material result except a warning to the Petitioner, there is neither any legality nor propriety in favour of the Respondent Board to withdraw the charge-sheet and serve a fresh one. Neither in substance nor in form, there appears to be any technical defect, justifying the withdrawal of the earlier charge-sheet and issuance of the latter. It is a settled rule of taw and administration of justice that in order to ensure confidence5 amongst the services, if any lapse is found against a defaulter, then action should be taken against him promptly. If, after a thorough consideration of the case, it is found that no action can be taken; then the matter should be dropped and buried for ever. It cannot be reopened and the Damocles sword should not be permitted to hang on his head for all times to come.

So far as the claim of the Petitioner to the difference of salary for the period of suspension is concerned, no material whatsoever has been placed by the Respondent Board on the record in order to justify the withholding thereof. An independent decision has to be taken under law by the competent authority in order,, to disclose the reasons on the basis whereof full salary for, the period of suspension is not to be granted to the defaulter and as to why only the suspension allowance has to be considered enough; during the suspension period. Since the Petitioner could not be prosecuted in the Court of law, in pursuance of the First Information Report lodged against him, nor could he be subjected to any punishment in the departmental inquiry, there was hardly any justification for not releasing the arrears of salary for the period of suspension in addition to the subsistence allowance already drawn by him.

Consequently, the impugned orders Annexures P/11 and P/14 to P/17 are hereby quashed as the action of the Punjab State Electricity Board in reopening the matter is wholly violative of the principles of natural justice. As a result thereof, a writ of mandamus is hereby issued against the Respondents to grant to the Petitioner the following relief forthwith:

(1) Arrears of salary (difference between the actual salary and the subsistence allowance already drawn during the period of suspension from 3rd May, 1973 to 25th April, 1975); and

(2) Fixation of pay by adding annual increments from 1973 onwards, subject, of course, to the consideration of his service record for the purposes of crossing the efficiency bar, etc.

The departmental proceedings sought to be initiated in pursuance of the fresh charge-sheet are also hereby quashed and the Respondents are restrained from reopening the matter against the Petitioner.

In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.