Shamsher Singh vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and Another

Bakhshish Kaur, J.—Shamsher Singh-petitioner, by invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, has filed this writ with a prayer that the impugned order whereby he was dismissed from service be quashed.

The petitioner was working as the Works Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Kapurthala Depot. Sh. Jagjit Singh Pannu was working as Depot Manager, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Kapurthaia Depot. For the misappropriation and misuse of the amount, Preliminary enquiry was held against them, where after they were served with charge sheets. Resultantly on the basis of the evidence produce against them, the punishing authority found the petitioner responsible for gross mis-conduct, lacking integrity, thus his services were terminated with immediate effect. Whereas Jagjit Singh Pannu was awarded the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that the charges levelled against both the employees were the same. The petitioner has been awarded the gravest punishment of dismissal from service. Whereas lesser punishment has been awarded to Jagjit Singh Pannu. It, therefore, amounts to discrimination, viola-tive of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The respondents in their joint written statement have admitted the holding of an enquiry against the petitioner and Jagjit Singh Pannu. It is reiterated that they were found guilty for the lapses on their part and they were punished accordingly. Negligence on the part of the petitioner in the performance of his duty was established. He was over all incharge of the workshop. He was required to keep check on the local purchases. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality.

I have heard Sh. Sarjit Singh, Sr.Adv. assisted by Ms. Kavita Madan, Adv. none of the respondent had appeared to address the arguments.

As many as 12 charges were levelled against the petitioner which were in the nature of misappropriation/misuse of the Corporation cash/revenue in kapurthala depot by encouraging local purchases of spare parts at-higher rates, not observing the set procedure. The enquiry officer has submitted his report. The Charges levelled against the petitioner are contained in Annexure P-l, under para 2, which reads as under:-2. The charges levelled against the official briefly were as follows:-

(1) While working as Works Manager from 25,6.79 to 11.5.81, he made local purchases of spare parts from firms which were neither on rate contract nor were the authorised dealers of any principal manufacturer. The local purchases were made from these firms amounting to Rs. 220948.48. The purchases were made by patronising a few firms instead of going to the market and judging the comparative rates. In several cases purchases were made without obtaining quotations from the order firms in violation of the standard instructions No. 28 dated 16.4.197I of the Corporation.

(2) A can shaft was purchased locally for Rs. 3300/- and fitted in Bus No. 3433 while the rate contract price of the part was very low. He did not watch the interest of the Corporation for malafide intention and procured the spare parts at higher rates.

(3) He did not carry out physical inspection of stores which was his primary duty. It was necessary for him to inspect each and every item of stores received in the depot before it was delivered in the stores and issued for use for repairs of the vehicles. Thus he violated the standing instructions issued by the General Manager vide office order No. 11 dated 5.4.72.

(4) A shortage of high speed diesel of 8495 liters was detected but Sh. Shamsher Singh, Works Manager, allowed the shortage to be made good in due course thereby causing financial loss to the Corporation of Rs. 19178.70.

(5) He did not supervise the stores and did not maintain the bin cards of each item of the store which was a serious irregularity and violation of the instructions of the Corporation.

(6) He had been initiating proposals for making local purchases through advance bills without giving the details of the item to be purchased against that amount and without obtaining any proforma bills from the firms concerned. This was against the canons of financial propriety.

(7) The material procured for use locally was consumed in the depot without having it inspected from the Inspection Committee.

(8) He allowed payment of Rs. 1000/- as advance to Sh. Ramesh Suri, Clerk which remained unadjusted till 12.5.1981. Thus he helped in temporary embezzlement of the amount and also committed a serious financial irregularity.

(9) He made a fictitious entry of Steering Bracket Assembly (T.M.B.) for Rs. 1218/- through purchase was never effected leading to defrauding and embezzlement of Corporation funds.

(10) Local purchases were made from 12/80 to 4/81 which far exceeded the authorised limit of Rs. 150007- p.m.delegated to each Depot Manager. Since the purchase of spare parts is done on the recommendation of the Works Manager, the procurement of spare parts locally shows'' an indication of his poor planning. Local purchases actually made during December 1980 to April 1981 were Rs. 102525.41, Rs. 118541.40, Rs. 119880.33, Rs. 69291.57 and Rs. 23851.53 month wise respectively.

(11) He made proposals for purchasing spare parts from the local market at Jullunder without ascertaining whether those spare parts were available in the Central Store-at Patiala and also by splitting up the purchase into several bills as per details given to him in specific cases in the charge-sheet.

(12) He made purchases of spare parts from local market at Jullundur committing irregularities" in respect of few specified bills which were checked and details of which were supplied to him alongwith the chargesheet. These irregularities included purchase without getting demand of workshop/store, procuring material without mentioning the make of each item, purchasing without getting written approval of the competent authority-, accepting quotations generally of some three firms without preparing the comparative statement, making bulk and heavy purchases whereas it should have been for emergent purposes and vehicle-wise, splitting procurement of items of various bills for the same item and on the same date etc. etc."

AITfhe charges, except charges at S.No. 1,4,5 and 9 were established, as reported by the enquiry officer.

Now adverting to the charges levelled against Jagjit Singh Pannu, the same are as mentioned Annexure P-2. The punishing authority found that the details of allegations included the exceeding of powers of making local purchases, using of revenue collected for making local purchases .without authority, making purchases at rates higher than those prevailing in local market, not following the set procedure for making local pnr-chases of spare parts, allowing the shortage of 8495 liters of diesel to be made good instead of effecting recovery from the responsible officials, allowing material procured to be consumed without inspection, issuing advances to firms and employees without ascertaining whether those spare pars were available in the central store, making purchases at excessive price compared to the rate contract price and diverting revenues without authority for clearing the imprest etc.etc.

The enquiry officer in his report, submitted that the Depot Manager, Jagjit Singh Pannu had made local purchase amounting of Rs. 4,34,090.24 against delegated power of purchasing only upto Rs. 75,000/-. In this way he has exceeded and violated the powers delegated upon him. It was also found that he made purchases at higher rates than those prevailing in the local market. He was also found guilty of negligence in the discharge of his official duties regarding shortage of high speed diesel to the extent of 8495 liters being allowed to be made good. He had also made local purchases from different firms at Jallandhar at a price of Rs. 64.304.59 whereas the rate contract price of these items would have been Rs. 38,837.60 other allegations of serious nature were also proved against him.

The punishing authority accepted the finding of the enquiry officer and was also of the view that the charges are of, serious nature and they would normally justify in major penalty or termination of service, still he was awarded a lesser punishment of stop page of two increments with the cumulative effect.

Thus, it is apparent case of discrimination on the part of the authority, as the petitioner as well as Jagjit Singh Pannu both had equally contributed to their misconduct and negligence in the performance of their duties.

The case put forth by the petitioner is that Sh. S.K. Ahluwalia, Deputy General Manager of the Corporation, when he visited Kapurthala Depot of the Corporation during the leave of Jagjit Singh Pannu, Depot Manager, had reported regarding irregulari- ties on 4.5.1981. He has also reported that Jagjit Singh Pannu was specifically told on 22.4.81 by the General Manager not to exceed the limit of Rs. 15,000- for local purposes, but he made purchases of Rs. 3100/-, even after 22.4.81 when the limit of Rs. 15,0007- had already been crossed. This fact as pleaded in the petition stands admitted by the respondents in their written statement. The defence of the respondent is that it is the petitioner who had initiated the local purchases and that it is he who had failed to adopt proper procedure as quotations were not obtained from other firms.

The finding recorded by the punishing authority holding the petitioner responsible and guilty of act complained of do not call for interference because allegations of misappropriation etc. are proved but the only point under consideration is whether on the point of sentences, lie has been discriminated against Jagjit Singh Pannu? Since both were held guilty for misappropriation and misuse and exceeding the power regarding purchases etc., therefore, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner for dismissal from service, amounts to discrimination as against the other, who was awarded lesser punishment. It would therefore amount to denial of justice. In this context my attention has been drawn to "Sengara Singh and others etc. vs. The State of Punjab 1983 L. l.C 1670" and Swinder Singh vs. The Director State Transport, Punjab Chandigarh 1988 (7) S.L.R. 112".

The order imposing severe penalty of dismissal from service is arbitrary. The object of Article 14 of the Constitution is to ensure fairness and equality of treatment. In the sphere of public employment, this means that any action taken by the employer against an employee must be fair, just and reasonable which are the components of fail-treatment, as held in Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Others, .

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 am of the view that the treatment meted to the petitioner by imposing major penalty of dismissal suffers from the vice of arbitrary action. It would, therefore, tantamount to denial of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.

For the foregoing reasons, this writ is allowed. The impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service is hereby quashed.

On the quantum of punishment, it is well settled that High Court can interfere if it is found that the penalty imposed by the employer is shockingly disproportionate or unduly harsh.

Consequently, the impugned order of punishment is hereby quashed. The disci plinary authority is however granted liberty to pass orders of punishment afresh, after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law.