B D GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal on special leave is from an order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing summarily an appeal directed against a judgment and order of a Single Judge of that Court by which a petition of the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed. The matter arises in connection with a disciplinary proceeding under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 which has a very chequered career.

(2.) For a proper appreciation of the point raised in this case it is necessary to set out some of the salient facts. The appellant joined the Punjab Irrigation Department as a temporary Engineer in 1939 and in course of time became and Executive Engineer in that department. In December, 1954 he was arrested in connection with a case under Sec 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which had been registered against one K. R. Sharma, Superintending Engineer, with whom the appellant had been working as a Personal Assistant. The appellant was, however, enlarged on bail. About the same time the appellant was suspended with effect from 13 December 1954 and certain departmental proceedings were started against him. In November 1956 the appellant was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 7.2 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. There was two distinct charges made against the appellant which will, for the sake of convenience, be described hereinafter as Charge No. 1 (a) and Charge No. 1 (b). Both the charges were based on allegations that the appellant had taken illegal gratification. We are not concerned for the purposes of this appeal with the details of the charges. On 18 December 1956 the appellant submitted a reply to the charge-sheet to which he added certain supplementary replies between May and July, 1957. Government, it appears, appointed an Enquiry Officer as late as October, 1957. On 18 February 1958 the appellant was reverted from the post of Executive Engineer (under suspension) to that of an Assistant Engineer (under suspension). In May, 1958 Government decided to defer the enquiry in respect of Charge 1 (b) until there was decision in regard to Charge 1 (a). In October, 1958 the Enquiry Officer submitted to Government a report in respect of Charge 1 (a) which exonerated the appellant completely. The Government then waited for another six months before appointing another Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry in regard to Charge 1 (b). The appellant, it appears, asked Government on more than one occasion to supply him with a copy of the report of the first Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge 1 (a). Government, however, declined to supply any copy. In December, 1960 the criminal case which had been started against the appellant in 1954 ended in discharge of the appellant. On 19 April 1961 the appellant was dismissed from service on the basis of a report of the second Enquiry Officer regarding Charge 1 (b). This order of dismissal was, however, quashed in March, 1963 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The appellant was, thereafter , reinstated and forthwith placed under another order of suspension in May, 1963. A third Enquiry Officer was appointed simultaneously for a fresh enquiry into Charge 1 (b). In February, 1965 the appellant got a decree in a civil suit by which he was allowed to recover the balance of his pay and allowance for the period of suspension and for quashing the order of reversion. Between 1963 and 1965 the appellant made various attempts through what was apparently a high-powered board called the Establishment Board to bring about a closure of the enquiry proceedings initiated against him. Nothing happened until 15 December 1965 when, once again Government appointed a new Enquiry Officer to replace the earlier officer who had been appointed in February, 1965. In January, 1966 the appellant was reinstated as Executive Engineer and in October, the same year, the entire enquiry against the appellant was withdrawn. One would have thought that this would be the end of the unusually protracted proceedings against the appellant. On the contrary, however, on 26 October 1966 Government served a fresh "Show Cause notice" on the appellant by which the appellant was told that his explanation of 18 December 1956 in reply to the charges and allegations levelled against him had been found unsatisfactory by Government and that Government proposed to censure his conduct.

(3.) Immediately upon receipt of the said "Show Cause notice" the appellant asked for a copy of the statement made by one S. D. Khanna, Sub-Divisional Officer under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant justified his demand for a copy of S. D. Khanna' statement of reference to two facts. First, Charge No. 1 (b) related to an alleged demand by the appellant for illegal gratification in the presence of S. D. Khanna and he was, therefore, entitled to have a copy of the statements made by S. D. Khanna before the police and the magistrate. Secondly, the appellant pointed out, under the orders of the High Court he was expecting a copy of Khanna's statement to be supplied to him on 27 October 1966. He did not, however, receive a copy because the Government withdrew the chargesheet against him on 18 October 1966. If, therefore, by a fresh "Show Cause Notice" the appellant was called upon to vindicate his earlier reply to the chargesheet, he was, he claimed, entitled to a copy of the statement of S. D. Khanna. On 24 November 1966, however, Secretary to the Government of Haryana turned down the appellant's request for a copy of Khanna's statement. Thereafter, on 16 December 1966 the appellant submitted a reply to the "Show Cause notice."