LAWS(P&H)-1990-6-37

BHANWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On June 27, 1990
BHANWAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment disposes of Civil Writ Petitions No. 5165 of 1989, 15231 of 1989 and 7981 of 1990. The last mentioned writ petition was ordered to be disposed of with Civil Writ Petitions No. 5165 and 15231 of 1989.

(2.) IN C. W. P. No. 5165 of 1989 the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the enquiry proceedings pending against him since 1981 and a further direction that after quashing of the enquiry proceedings, he should be allowed all the consequential benefits which were withheld because of the pendency of the enquiry proceedings.

(3.) THE petitioner was appointed as Deputy Director Agriculture on September 23, 1976. He was placed under suspension vide order dated March 27, 1981. On June 30, 1981, the statement of charges and the statement of allegations were served upon him. The petitioner filed written reply to the chargesheet on July 22, 1981. On receipt of the reply, the order of suspension was withdrawn and the petitioner was reinstated on February 2, 1982. Thereafter he was posted as Chief Training Officer, Hansi. On February 17, 1982, the Enquiry Officer Vigilance, Haryana was appointed as Inquiry officer to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1952 (for short the Rules ). The Inquiry Officer did not proceed with the enquiry as presumably there was no adequate material to proceed with the same as provided under Rule 7 of the Rules. In paragraph 8 of the petition, the petitioner has averred as under:-"the averments made in the paras above show that despite best efforts made by the Government and the offices of the Director and the Deputy Director, no proof indicating towards the guilt of the accused had been found. The Enquiry Officer of the Vigilance Department had thought that the material on the record was not at all adequate to proceed with the enquiry under Rule 7. However, for the reasons best known to the respondent, the petitioner was being harassed unnecessarily by virtue of this pending enquiry. Nothing has been done to advance the proceedings of Enquiry and this Sword of Damocles has been left hanging on the head of the petitioner to hang him whenever an opportunity comes. "