KANWALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition, as originally framed in the year 1996, challenged the charge-sheet issued against the petitioner on 06.11.1991 and the constitution of an enquiry by the 5th respondent, named in person, on the ground that there was a personal bias against the petitioner and that, therefore, the enquiry was vitiated by mala fides and bias. The challenge also included that the finding recorded in the enquiry report was not supported by any reasoning. The writ petition came to be filed when the petitioner, who had retired on 29.02.1996, was sought to be visited with the penalty of withholding 50% of pensionary benefits such as leave encashment and gratuity. After the filing of the writ petition, the decision of the 5th respondent had been challenged by a revision petition before the 6th respondent-Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, Chandigarh, who by a cryptic order dismissed the revision petition. The writ petitioner had, therefore, amended the writ petition also to challenge the order of the Financial Commissioner.

(2.) The charge-sheet against the petitioner was that during his service as a General Manager and Incharge of Project Section dealing with the planning, execution of the housing complexes/projects taken by Housefed at Bathinda, Mohali and Ludhiana, he had failed to effectively supervise the planning and execution of the work and by his negligence caused a financial loss of Rs. 2.40 lacs. The charge-sheet had been issued not merely against the petitioner but also against the Managing Director. They had a common defence to make and the Managing Director had also explained that the petitioner was not, in any way, responsible for the alleged losses. The petitioner had also responded to the charge-sheet but ultimately when an enquiry was constituted by appointment of the 5th respondent as Enquiry Officer, the petitioner had sought for change of the Enquiry Officer. The plea was rejected and ultimately the enquiry led to a finding of guilt on certain charges while exonerating the petitioner from certain other charges. The report had been given on 28.07.1995 and a show cause notice had been issued on 28.11.1995 to the petitioner to respond to the punishment proposed to be imposed against him. The complaint of the petitioner was also that the Enquiry Officer's report had not been served to him to give his response to show cause against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner had sought for time for responding to the notice but in the meanwhile, on 29.02.1996, he retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation. On the same day, an order was also issued by the 6th respondent that his superannuation was "subject to the decision on the show cause notice already issued to him."

(3.) Against the decision finding him guilty and imposing the punishment of cut in 50% of the pensionary benefits, the counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner's service with the 3rd respondent was governed by the Punjab State Cooperative Housing Federation Service Rules of 1976 and the said Rules did not provide for continuation of the enquiry beyond the date of superannuation. The impugned order passed on 06.06.1996 being subsequent to the date of the superannuation on 29.02.1996 was incompetent and without any legal basis. It was also the contention of the petitioner that the imposition of punishment of withholding any portion of the pensionary benefits was not provided for and, therefore, even the punishment meted out to him was illegal and unjustified. The other point contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the action of the 3rd respondent also betrayed a brazen instance of discrimination when the Managing Director, who was also proceeded against in the enquiry and who had been the principal decision making authority, had been exonerated and a different yardstick could not have been applied against the petitioner only. The last point urged was that the enquiry itself was vitiated since it was carried out by a person, who was under the direct control of the 5th respondent, who had a grudge against the petitioner for not obliging him in the matter of selection of candidates for the post of Secretary for Primary House Building Societies under the control of Housefed. As a person, who was directly reporting to the 5th respondent and over whom the 5th respondent had a complete control, the Enquiry Officer could not have had an objective assessment in the matter of adjudication. This aspect of bias was specifically refuted by the respondent No. 1, 2 and 6 in the counter filed by them.