PT. RAJINDER NARAIN TEWARI Vs. HARYANA GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF IRRIGATION AND POWER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was originally an employee of the Punjab Government is now an employee of the Government of Haryana in the Irrigation Branch of the Haryana Public Works Department in the rank of a Sec. Officer. On Nov. 7,1965 the petitioner was transferred to Delhi in the Jamna Barrage Circle which is under the charge of the Executive Engineer (Mechanical), Jamna Barrage Division, with its office at 3, Alipur Road, Delhi. Originally, the petitioner held the charge of the execution of the works of erection of gates and gearing of Jamna Barrage but later on an additional charge of handling Mechanical stores was also given to him. The petitioner took charge on Dec. 31, 1965. In April, 1966 the petitioner discovered that there was some shortages in the mechanical stores and went to lodge a report to this effect on April 19,1966. It is averred by the petitioner that he was advised by the Station House Officer concerned that the report about the shortages should be submitted to the Police by some responsible officer of the department. Accordingly, the petitioner reported the matter to his Executive Engineer. The Executive Engineer is stated to have held some preliminary, enquiry/investigation on May 6,1966 and then reported the matter to the Police on May 16,1966. While the Police investigation was still in progress a notice to show cause was served upon the petitioner by respondent No.3, the Superintending Engineer, purporting to be under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why he should not be held responsible for the thefts that had taken place from the mechanical stores of material of the value of Rs. 13,904.65. The petitioner submitted a reply to this show cause notice. In the meantime the police after completing its investigation put up a challan sending up the petitioner for trial under Sec. 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was acquitted of the charge on July 31,1969. On Aug. 1,1969, the petitioner rejoined his duties as he was under suspension during the period when he was being prosecuted. Thereafter the impugned show cause notice dated Feb. 17,1971 was issued to the petitioner by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works (Haryana), Chandigarh. This show cause notice is under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,1952. The petitioner has been asked by the said impugned notice to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him for recovery of Rs. 13,904.65 plus a further sum of Rs. 623.65, in all a sum of Rs. 14,828.28.

(2.) The statement of allegations attached to this notice set out that while taking over charge at the Jamna Barrage site from his predecessor on Dec. 31,1965, he had not check and verify the stores physically, as required to record check certificate for physical verification of the stores within one month from the date of taking over charge and this constitutes serious irregularity. It is further stated in the statement of allegations that he being incharge of the stores gave the keys of the stores to a chowkidar and a store munshi; the store accounts were prepared by the store munshi himself whereas according to the rules, he being incharge of the stores, he should have prepared the accounts himself and "thus he is found guilty of not complying with Government orders". It further goes on to state that the petitioner did not conduct half yearly check of stores at the end of March,1966 which is required under Rule 435 of the P.W.D. Code and "as such he is held responsible for the loss of Government stores amounting to Rs. 13,904.65 plus Rs. 623.63 which occurred due to his negligence and non observance of the Codal Rules". The details and valuations of the store alleged to have been lost are also annexed to the statement of allegations. The petitioner challenges the issue of the show cause notice on the following grounds:-

(3.) That the second impugned departmental enquiry which is contemplated is bad in law as the amount sought to be recovered by the second show cause notice is at variance with the amount sought to be recovered in the first show cause notice;