GIANI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation as Block Development and Panchayat Officer on 30.11.1987. On 17.11.1987, an order was passed against him under Rule 4(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 (for brevity, 'the Rules'), on the basis of the charges that he had left the headquarters on 31.12.1983 without obtaining the station leave up to 1.1.1984 and thereafter furnished an application on 2.1.1984. His one annual grade increment with cumulative effect was stopped (P-3). On 11.1.1988, an order was passed that the period of his suspension from 22.3.1984 to 21.3.1985 was to be treated as a duty period and he was to be given only subsistence allowance (P-4). The petitioner has challenged both the aforementioned orders on the ground that no regular departmental inquiry was held and, therefore, the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect could not have been inflicted as it is a major penalty. For inflicting major penalty, a regular departmental inquiry has to be held.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was posted as Block Development and Panchayat Officer at Sampla (Haryana). He was placed under suspension vide order dated 21.3.1984 (P-1) and he was reinstated vide order dated 12.3.1985 without prejudice to the disciplinary action that might be taken against him in consequence of the disciplinary proceedings. Thereafter a charge sheet was served on him on the allegation that he left the headquarters on 31.12.1983 without obtaining station leave for 31.12.1983 and 1.1.1984 from the competent authority and that on 2.1.1984 he sent an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, from his village Ram Rai, District Jind, for grant of leave from 2.1.1984 to 27.1.1984. It was pointed out in the charge sheet that he could not have left the headquarters without prior permission of the competent authority as per the provisions of Appendix-17, Serial No. 5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-II and he should have got his leave sanctioned from the competent authority before availing it. Therefore, it was alleged that he remained absent from duty from 31.12.1983 to 27.1.1984, which constitute a grave misconduct.

(3.) The petitioner denied the charges and explained his position stating that he had left the headquarters by forwarding his application in that regard vide Memo. No. 3414, dated 30.12.1983, from his office to the office of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Rohtak. Therefore, the allegation that he left the headquarters without seeking permission was false. With regard to leave application sent from home, the petitioner has stated that for the period from 2.1.1984 to 27.1.1984 he got the leave extended on account of search of a suitable match for his daughter who was of marriageable age. He was at pains to point out to the respondents that when he reached his village, he was told about the suitable match of his daughter at few places and he believed that talk of marriage of his daughter is likely to mature. Therefore, he applied for leave. The office of the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak, started asking questions from the petitioner with regard to the date of marriage of his daughter as per the telegram dated 18.1.1984 when the marriage was yet to mature. However, the petitioner joined his duty on 27.1.1984. The case of the petitioner is that the punishing authority without considering his reply to the charge sheet, stopped his one annual grade increment with cumulative effect, vide order dated 17.11.1987 (P-3) and has restricted his pay and allowances in respect of the suspension period from 22.3.1984 to 21.3.1985 to the payment of subsistence allowance already made, vide order dated 11.1.1988 (P-4).