KARTAR SINGH GERWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appellant, since dead, was working as Chief Medical Officer, Bhatinda when he was suspended, chargesheeted and ultimately dismissed from service after enquiry. The order of dismissal was challenged in Civil Court. The trial Court decreed the suit. The order was affirmed in appeal. But the High Court in second appeal set aside the order of the two Courts below and dismissed the suit.

(2.) The claim of the appellant that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity was not accepted either by the trial Court or the First Appellate Court. But the suit was decreed on construction of Rule 22 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment) and Appeals Rules, 1970. It was held that the appellant having retired on 31 st August 1972 and the order of dismissal dated 28th August 1972 having been served by registered post on 7th September 1972 it became operative from that date only. But since the appellant had retired prior to the date of communication the order was ineffective as the appellant was not in service any more. The High Court reversed the order and held that, the rule was directory and not mandatory. Further the order having been published in Govt. Gazette extraordinary on 28th August, 1972 and broadcast from AIR Bhatinda on same day, and also published in Tribune it could not be said that it was not communicated under Rule 22.

(3.) The judgment of the High Court and the order of dismissal were assailed on the ground that. the High Court committed an error of law in construing the rule and holding that it was directory. It was further urged that the enquiry officer did not afford reasonable opportunity and relied even on material which was neither supplied nor was the appellant apprised of it. The learned counsel challenged quantum of punishment as well. It was urged that none out of the six charges which were held to be proved, on scanty material, made out misconduct which justified dismissal. The learned counsel urged that the appellant's record was unblemished for 29 years. In the circumstances the disciplinary authority acted arbitrarily in dismissing the appellant from service. The ends of justice, according to him, would have been adequately met by compulsorily retiring him which was one of the punishments under the rules which could be imposed.