MALVINDERJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MALVINDERJIT Singh, Petitioner -Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) was appointed Dietician in the Rajindra Hospital, Patiala and his duties as such are given in "Information for the candidates" issued at the time of his recruitment which is annexure 'A' to the writ. Inter -alia, he was to inspect food articles received from the contractor to ensure good quality; inspection of food served to the patients; checking of the diet prescribed for the patients: supervision of the work performed by the kitchen staff; teaching of nutrition and diet to the student nurses and medical students, etc. The stores were actually under the charge of a store -keeper. The Appellant was in the gazetted rank and in the Class II service of the State. Kartar Singh, store -keeper, who was working as such since before the appointment of the Appellant, was transferred on 16th of July, 1962, and one Bahadur Singh, who was working in the medical store, was transferred as the store -keeper of the kitchen stores. The Appellant was directed to take over the temporary charge of the store before the new man took over. Appellant consequently, took over charge and signed various registers certifying that the charge has been taken over by him. Bahadur Singh, joined on 18th of August, l962, but he was kept under training till 3rd of November, 1962, when he took over actual charge of the stores. On 22nd of October, 1962, the Medical Superintendent received a complaint that Bahadur Singh has removed a tin of ghee. Under the orders of the Medical Superintendent, a Committee of Doctors and others nominated by him, physically checked the stores in the presence of the Appellant on the 23rd and 24th October, 1962, and reported excesses and shortages of various items of kitchen stores. Ghee, wheat flour, rice ziri and pulses were found in excess, some of these items by several quintals and basmati rice was found short by nearly four quintals. Apparently, this committee did not actually check the fuel wood stock. On getting this report, Accounts Officer, Mr. Garg was directed to carry out, the physical checking and he did the checking between 28th and 30th November, 1962 and apart from the excesses and shortages as mentioned above, he noticed that fuel wood was short by 907 quintals as compared to the quantity on the stock register. The Appellant was suspended and was allowed subsistence allowance as admissible under Rule 7.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I. In order to further probe the matter and reach at the bottom of the whole affair, the matter was referred for inquiry and report to the Vigilance Department. The inquiry was conducted by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, who recorded the Statements of a number of employees of the Rajindra Hospital, of the kitchen staff as well as of the contractors, who supplied the fuel Wood, though not in the presence of the Appellant. The Appellant was also asked certain questions by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in answer to which, inter alia the Appellant stated that he was asked to take over charge temporarily and within a day or so physical checking was not possible and he certified having taken the charge, on good faith. The report was submitted on 26th November, 1963, about a year after the discovery of the shortages. According to this report, the Deputy Superintendent of Police exonerated both Kartar Singh and Bahadur Singh, store -keepers, and also came to the conclusion that there was no evidence of the Appellant being dishonest, but held that "his negligence and lack of supervision in the proper maintenance of his accounts resulting into irregularities remained substantiated against him for which action under Rule 8 of the aforesaid rules is warranted.

(2.) AFTER this report the Appellant was reinstated but it was directed that he will not receive anything more than his subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension. He was served with a notice under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Service Rules) sometime later in the same month of November, 1963, stating that it was proposed to take action against him (i) to recover the shortage of Rs. 6,582 found in fuel wood and Basmati rice from him as this shortage occurred due to his negligence in supervision and (ii) to stop his next two increments with cumulative effect." (annexure 'H'). In annexure 'I', that is, statement of allegations which was annexed with the notice, all the facts as given above, that is, receipt of the complaint about the removal of the tin of Ghee and the recovery of the same on 23rd October, 1962; formation of the committee which conducted the checking on 24th of October, 1962, and the subsequent physical verification done by Shri J. R. Garg. Accounts Officer, were mentioned and it was stated that by report, dated 3rd of December, 1962, of Mr. Garg, shortages and excesses, detailed therein including the shortage of fuel wood had been noticed. No mention, at all, was made of the inquiry that was got conducted by the Government through the Vigilance Department. The Appellant was directed to submit his explanation and the same was submitted by him which is annexure 'J'. In the very second paragraph of the same it was pointedly stated by the Appellant as follows:

(3.) THE Division Bench after going into the facts of this case repelled the first two arguments and held that in the circumstances of the case, the Appellant cannot be said to have been properly informed that he could inspect the report and further that the report was in fact, prejudicial to the interests of the Appellant and was taken into consideration by the Government and in any case was likely to prejudicially affect the mind of the authorities. As regards the third point whether under Rule 8 the Appellant was entitled to a copy of the report or a substance thereof together with the material on which the same is based, or which comes to the same thing, to be allowed to inspect the same, Division Bench considered at length the authorities cited before it but feeling that this matter was of importance and likely to arise in large number of cases, referred the following two questions for decision by a larger Bench: