JASWANT SINGH KANWAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Misc. Application is allowed.

(2.) Petitioner Jaswant Singh Kanwar, who retired as Assistant Controller (Finance and Accounts), from the Department of Finance, Punjab, Chandigarh, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition and has prayed that the impugned order dated 22.10.1998 (Annexure P5) be quashed. A perusal of the impugned order (Annexure P5) reveals that the Petitioner, who was working in the office of the General Manager, Punjab Roadways at Chandigarh, was placed under suspension vide order dated 17.02.1988 due to shortage of cash found in the accounts by the inspection party while making physical check of the cash for the period commencing from 01.01.1988 to 03.02.1988. The impugned order (Annexure P5) further states that thereafter the charge sheet was served upon the Petitioner. His reply was not found satisfactory and the Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Report was not accepted by the Government and the Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner. Reply to the Show Cause Notice was also not found satisfactory and two increments of the Petitioner with cumulative effect were stopped and his suspension period commencing from 17.02.1988 to 07.01.1993 was treated as leave of kind due. The impugned order further states that the punishment was approved by the Punjab Public Service Commission, vide communication dated 25.04.1996. The appeal filed by the Petitioner was also rejected. The impugned order (Annexure P5), under challenge, further states that the Petitioner had filed a writ petition viz. Civil Writ Petition No. 12841 of 1997 in this Court and the matter was remanded back to the Punishing Authority to decide afresh. After reconsideration, the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Finance, had ordered that the period of suspension from 17.02.1988 to 07.01.1993 would be treated as leave of kind due and the Petitioner would be entitled to pay and allowances not more than the subsistence allowance paid to him during the period of his suspension and furthermore the period of suspension would not be treated as a period spent on duty. In the present writ petition, the Petitioner is not only seeking quashing of this punishment, so awarded, but also prayed that the order (Annexure P7) be also set aside whereby for the period of suspension, no increment has been awarded to the Petitioner. Even though the impugned order (Annexure P5) noticed all the facts in brief, but still, to answer the issues raised in the present writ petition, the facts can be recapitulated as under.

(3.) In the month of February 1988, the Petitioner was working as an Assistant Accounts Officer in the office of the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh, where he was lateron designated as Assistant Controller (Finance and Accounts). The Inspection Committee had carried out a physical verification of accounts in the office of the Petitioner and it came to light that three cashiers namely Ved Parkash, Rattan Chand and Bhag Singh, under the control and supervision of the Petitioner, had embezzled a sum of '3,97,646.70. Consequently, the Petitioner was suspended on 17.02.1988. Thereafter, the charge sheet was served upon the Petitioner on 03.06.1988 and the Enquiry Officer was appointed. It is stated that the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the Petitioner from the charge of embezzlement. However, for certain lapses on the part of the Petitioner, he was held responsible. The Government had not agreed with the report of the Enquiry Officer and issued a Show Cause Notice to the Petitioner on 19.08.1992. The Petitioner has submitted his reply thereto on 15.10.1992. However, the Petitioner was reinstated in service on 07.01.1993. The order dated 04.05.1994 (Annexure 3) was passed whereby the entire period of suspension was treated as a leave of the kind due and two increments of the Petitioner with cumulative effect were stopped. This action of the Respondents was challenged by the Petitioner in this Court by way of filing a Civil Writ Petition. A Division Bench of this Court had decided the said writ petition viz Civil Writ Petition No. 12841 of 1997, preferred by the Petitioner, vide order dated 20.03.1998 (Annexure P4) by observing as under: