Ramesh Lal vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

“PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

“The shoot point involved in this writ petition is whether the punishment can be imposed by an authority higher in rank than the appointing authority because in that case the deliquent looses his right to appeal before the Disciplinary Authority. It is submitted that 72 there is a rule 12 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal Rules) 1970 which says that if there are common proceedings against few employees and one of the employee is of higher rank than the others than in that case punishment may be imposed by the higher authority. Rule 12 is reproduced below:-

"(1)

Where two or more Government employees are concerned in any case the Governor or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on all such Government employees may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding.

Note: If the authorities competent to impose the penalty of dismissal on such Government employees are different, an order for taking disciplinary action in a common proceeding may be made by the highest of such authorities with the consent of the others.

REPLY ON MERITS:

1 XXX XXX XXX

2 XXX XXX XXX

3 XXX XXX XXX

4.

That the contents are admitted to the extent that the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet dated 18.03.2002, issued to the petitioner. It is further submitted that after examining the reply, the Govt. appointed Inquiry Officer Sh. K.C. Maini I.A.S. (Retd.) who has proved the allegation leveled in the charge sheet against the petitioner. The Govt. after going through all facts found guilty to the petitioner and awarded punishment vide order dated 7.01.2004 (Annx. P-9) after following the procedure laid down in the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1970.

5.

XXX XXX XXX

6.

XXX XXX XXX

7.

In reply to this para it is submitted that The Hon'ble Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ferozepur, in his judgement dated 16.05.2001 granted liberty to the respondent to issue fresh charge sheet to the petitioner in accordance with law and conclude the fresh inquiry with in six months. After reexamination of the case and going through all the facts and after completing the formalities, the petitioner was issued fresh charge-sheet bearirig no. 10/173/90-BRI (6) /1477 dated 18.03.2002 that is before the rejection of orders dated 15/11/03 of the Hon'ble Civil Judge, (Sr. Div. Ferozepur) on the application for time extension filed by the respondent no. 2. Thereafter the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 17.06.2002. After examining the reply to the charge sheet the Government decided to appoint an inquiry officer in the said departmental proceedings case. Accordingly Sh. K.C. Maini I.A.S. (Retd.) was appointed Inquiry Officer vide order no. 10/173/9)-BRI (6) /402 dated 28.1.2003. The Inquiry Officer Sh. K.C. Maini I.A.S. (Retd.) submitted his inquiry report dated 20.05.2003 in which the charges against the petitioner have been proved. The Govt. after going through the inquiry report an other fact of the case imposed an punishment of recovery of Rs. 53617.72/- along with 10% interest from the date of occurrence of event and with holding one annual increment without future affect, to the petitioner vide order dated 7.01.2004 (Annx. P-9). Thus the petitioner was awarded punishment vide order 7.01.2004 (Annx. P-9), after following the procedure laid down in Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules 1970. The time consumed for finalisation of the case was due to completion of formalities required under Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules 1970.

8.

In reply to this para it is submitted that after reexamining the case and other facts of the case the petitioner was issued fresh charge-sheet vide no. 10/173/90/BRI (6)/1477 dated 18.03.2002. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 17.06.2002 and examining the same the Govt. decided to appoint an inquiry officer. Accordingly Sh. K.C. Maini I.A.S. (Retd.) was appointed Inquiry Officer vide order no. 10/173/90-BRI (6) /402 dated 28.01.2003 who has submitted his inquiry report dated 20.05.2003 in which the charge leveled against the petitioner have been proved. After considering the inquiry report, the petitioner was awarded punishment vide order dated 07.01.2004 (Annx. P-9), after following the procedure laid down in Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1970. The time consumed for finalisation of the case was due to completion of formalities required under Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1970.\

9.

In reply to this para it is submitted that submissions made in para no. 3 of preliminary objections and para 8 of the written submissions is retreated.

10.

That the para is only admitted to the extent that the petitioner submitted his reply dated 17.06.2002 for the fresh charge sheet dated 18.03.2002. However, it is submitted that Sh. D.S. Sandhu, the earlier enquiry officer found him guilty for causing a loss of Rs. 10897/- to the State and punishment was awarded on the basis of that enquiry. The enquiry report was not accepted by the petitioner. Fresh enquiry was conducted as per the orders of the Hon'ble Court Civil Judge, Sr. Divn. Ferozepur, dated d16.05.2001. On the basis of fresh enquiry report submitted by Inquiry Officer, Sh. K.C. Maini, IAS (Retd.) and keeping in view another facts of the case punishment has been awarded to the petitioner, which is legal, correct and justified as per natural law of justice. It is further submitted that submission laid down in para no. 3 of the preliminary objection and para no. 8 of written reply Supra is reitreated. Rest of the para is denied being misconceived and irrelevant.

11.

The reply to the charge sheet submitted by the petitioner on 17.06.2002 was considered and was found unsatisfactory after that the Inquiry Officer was appointed vide order no. 10/173/90 BRI (6)/402 dated 28.01.2003 so as to allow another opportunity to the petitioner. The findings was submitted by the Inquiry Officer Sh. K.C. Maini IAS (Retd.) on 20.05.2003 in which charges were proved against the petitioner. After examining the enquiry report and other facts of the report the petitioner was awarded punishment. The reply was well considered by the Civil Court and as such there is no lacunae in the enquiry.

12.

That the contents are admitted being matter of record.

13.

The contents of this para are denied being incorrect. The order dated 7.01.2004 is legal, not arbitrary, constitutional and within the provision of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules 1970.

(i)

With regard to this sub para, it is submitted that the matter regarding disciplinary action against the petitioner was also against the Gazetted Officer Sub Divisional Engineer whose appointing and punishing authority is respondent no. 1. As such the matter being of common proceedings, the impugned order is legally sound.

(ii)

With regard to this sub para it is submitted that The Hon'ble Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ferozepur, in his judgement dated 16.05.2001 granted liberty to the respondent to issue fresh charge sheet to the petitioner in accordance with law and conclude the fresh inquiry with in six months. After reexamination of the case and going through all the facts and after completing the formalities, the petitioner was issued fresh charge-sheet bearing no. 10/173/90-BRI (6) /1477 dated 18.03.2002 that is before the rejection of orders dated 15-11-2003 of the Hon'ble Civil Judge, (Sr. Div. Ferozepur) on the application for time extension filed by the respondent no. 2. Thereafter the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 17.06.2002. After examining the reply to the charge sheet the Government decided to appoint an inquiry officer in the said departmental proceedings case. Accordingly Sh. K.C. Maini I.A.S. (Retd.) was appointed Inquiry Officer vide order no. 10/173/90-BRI (6)/402 dated 28.1.2003. The Inquiry Officer Sh. K.C. Maini I.A.S. (Retd.) submitted his inquiry report dated 20.05.2003 in which the charges against the petitioner have been proved. The Govt. after going through the inquiry report an other fact of the case imposed an punishment of recovery of Rs. 53617.72/- along with 10% interest from the date of accurance of event and with holding one annual increment without future affect, to the petitioner vide order dated 7.01.2004 (Annex. P-9). Thus the petitioner was awarded punishment vide order 7.01.2004 (Annex. P-9), after following the procedure laid down in Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules 1970. The time consumed for finalisation of the case was due to completion of formalities required under Punjab Civil Services (Punishrnent & Appeal) Rules 1970. Even otherwise the para shows misconception of the petitioner which is denied.

(iii)

With regard to this sub para the submissions made in sub para (ii) is retreated. The impugned order dated 07.01.04 are legal, not arbitrary and constitutional. This sub para is denied being misconceive.

(iv)

With regard to this para it is submitted that the Hon'ble Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ferozepur, in his judgement dated 16.05.2001 granted liberty to the respondent to issue fresh charge sheet to the petitioner in accordance with law and conclude the fresh inquiry with in six months. After reexamination of the case and going through all the facts and after completing the formalities, the petitioner was issued fresh charge-sheet bearing no. 10/173/90-BRI (6) /1477 dated 18.03.2002 that is before the rejection of orders dated 15-11-2003 of the Hon'ble Civil Judge, (Sr. Div. Ferozepur) on the application for time extension filed by the respondent no. 2. Thereafter the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 17.06.2002. After examining the reply to the charge sheet the Government decided to appoint an inquiry officer in the said departmental proceedings case. Accordingly Sh. K.C. Maini I.A.S. (Retd.) was appointed Inquiry Officer vide order no. 10/173/90-BRI (6) /402 dated 28.1.2003. The Inquiry Officer Sh. K.C. Maini I.A.S. (Retd.) submitted his inquiry report dated 20.05.2003 in which the charges against the petitioner have been proved. The Govt. after going through the inquiry report an other fact of the case imposed an punishment of recovery of Rs. 53617.72/- along with 10% interest from the date of accurance of event and with holding one annual increment without future affect, to the petitioner vide order dated 7.01.2004 (Annex. P-9). Thus the petitioner was awarded punishment vide order 7.01.2004 (Annex. P-9), after following the procedure laid down in Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules 1970. The time consumed for finalisation of the case was due to completion of formalities required under Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1970. As such the para is denied.

It is again submitted that it is a case of common proceedings as the petitioner was involved with the than Sub Divisional Engineer i.e. D.S. Cheema. The said Sub Divisional Engineer has also already been punished by the Govt. and orders were issued vide its Order No. 10/173/94-BRI(6)/3261 dated 04.06.1998. It has also been laid down in Rule 12 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) rules 1970 that where two or more Government employees are concerned in any case the Governor or any other authority competent to impose the penalty of dismissal from services on all such Government employees may make an order directing that disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in a common proceeding.”