STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARDIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARDIT Singh plaintiff joined the service of the Punjab Govt. as Overseer on 6.8.1954. He passed Sections A and B of AMIC (India), which is an equivalent qualification to degree in Engineering, he was selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission for appointment as temporary Engineer (SDO). He joined as temporary Engineer/SCO on 30.7.64. His date of birth is 1.1.1935. He should have retired on superannuation at the age of 58 years on 31.12.1992. He was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 3.2.1981 on the recommendation of the screening committee constituted under rule 8 of the Punjab Service of Engineers Class -I (PWD Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964. He joined as Executive Engineer on 5.2.81. He was not conveyed any adverse remarks during his service career except a single entry recorded by defendant No. 2 (Shri K.K. Gupta, now Chief Engineer, Kandi Area Development, Sector 17, Chandigarh), the then Superintending Engineer, Dholbaha Dam Construction Circle, Hoshiarpur. He recorded adverse remarks in his ACR out of malice and without any competence. From the date of his promotion as Executive Engineer till he was compulsorily retired in the wake of the order dated 20.3.91, no adverse remark was ever conveyed to him except the one recorded maliciously by Shri K.K. Gupta. He was transferred on 3.1.86 to Hoshiarpur under Shri K.K. Gupta who wanted to retain one Shri D.R. Sudhakar who was Executive Engineer then posted there whom he was to replace. Shri K.K. Gupta wanted to retain Shri Sudhakar as he was hand in glove with him and with Shri B.D. Bali, Chief Engineer. Shri K.K. Gupta persuaded Shri Bali for the cancellation of his (plaintiffs) transfer to that place. Govt. did not agree with the proposal to cancel his transfer vice Shri D.R. Sudhakar. Plaintiff became the escape goat of the wrath of Shri K.K. Gupta who began nursing grudge against him as he had been posted there by the government against his wishes. When he joined the Division on 3.1.86, he observed that there was unequal distribution of work with Junior Engineers working under Shri N.K. Saddi in Kandi Water Shed Drainage Sub Division No. 2. Relying upon the instructions of the Chief Engineer in letter dated 15.3.79 and in the interest of better management, control etc, he withdrew part of work from Gurnam Singh and S.P. Sharma and allotted that work to Manohar Singh and Gurmit Singh who were sitting idle. Shri K.K. Gupta did not relish the withdrawal of part of work from Gurnam Singh and S.P. Sharma and its allotment to Manohar Singh and Gurmit Singh. Gurnam Singh and S.P. Sharma were working against the public interest. Shri K.K. Gupta instigated Gurnam Singh to disobey him, Gurnam Singh started disobeying him and continued to make entries in respect of the works transferred from him and avoided getting the works checked from him. Whenever he was asked that he should submit works to be checked by him, he avoided the checking of the works by him so as to conceal the fudge bills for the works not executed at site and exaggerated bills for the works executed substandard and also the bills for the works for which he had no authority for their execution. Shri K.K. Gupta knew that he would raise objections against payments of these bills if submitted for pre -audit. Shri K.K. Gupta passed orders that bills would be passed by the SDO without pre -audit. He thus violated the mandatory provision requiring pre -audit of the bills before making payments. Shri K.K. Gupta in order to hoodwink the whole issue, told him that he had passed orders that bills would be passed by the SDO without pre -audit because he (plaintiff) was not found in his office on 31.3.86 which was incorrect and a clear mischief on his part. Plaintiff refused to sign forms PWA -42 and PWA -45 in respect of the accounts of March, 1986 which incorporated the illegal payments made by JEs/SDOs at the instance of Shri K.K. Gupta. Shri K.K. Gupta for saving his own skin, received false complaints against him from the contractors which were anonymous and undated. Plaintiff replied to this communication of Shri K.K. Gupta vide letter No. 1696/6A. In the next year beginning from 1.4.86, Shri K.K. Gupta out of malice and ill -will, transferred all the works, jeeps, staff of the Division and record to Shri Y.D. Uppal, Executive Engineer, Janauri Chohar Construction Division and for this purpose, he stooped so low that he began corresponding with JEs direct. He arranged the payments of the transferred works from the budget of Executive Engineer, Janauri Chohar Construction Division which was actually allotted against some other head of account. Plaintiff took charge of the Division on 3.1.86. Accounts for the month of January 1986 were sent to A.G., Punjab on due date. No passed bill relating to the account of January 1986 was left to be incorporated in the said account. When the accounts for the month of February, 1986 duly compiled were put up to the plaintiff, he found that there were a number of bills passed over the signatures of D.R. Sudhakar who had left the Division on 3.1.1986. Enquiries made by him revealed that the signatures on bills were procured from Shri D.R. Sudhakar at his residence at Ludhiana for the month of February at the instance of Shri K.K. Gupta to consume the surplus on the estimated amounts. Plaintiff reported the matter to Shri K.K. Gupta who was the Superintending Engineer of the Circle and placed the amount of such bills in the miscellaneous advances of the JE and SDO concerned for effecting recovery from them. The plaintiff came to know subsequently that the amount had been cleared from the PW Misc. Advance at the instance of Shri K.K. Gupta and the defaulters were let off. S.P. Sharma misbehaved with him and created indiscipline. Shri K.K. Gupta transferred S.P. Sharma on the request of the plaintiff but S.P. Sharma refused to receive/obey the said orders of transfer. Plaintiff relinquished the charge on 13.7.1986. Reporting officer wrote the report for this period on 16.2.1987 while the instructions of the government conveyed vide order dated 7.6.1982 say that ACR should be written when either the reporting authority or reported officer relinquishes the charge of the post and in such a case it shall be written within 2 months of the relinquishment of the charge of the post. The next authority who was to endorse the report retired from service on 30.4.1987. Adverse report was conveyed to him on 12.6.1987. He remained posted under Shri K.K. Gupta from 3.1.1986 to 13.7.1986. As per the instructions of the government, Shri K.K. Gupta was not competent to report on his work and conduct for the year 1985 -86 as his stay under him was for less than 3 months. Shri K.K. Gupta had no material whatsoever with him to record adverse remarks on his work and conduct in his ACR. He did so because he refused to be party to the misappropriation of public funds.

(2.) PLAINTIFF was given selection grade vide order dated 14.10.1987, as such, the said ACR stood washed off. Vide order dated 10.4.1991 he was allowed to cross efficiency bar. He was allowed to be retained in service after he had attained age of 50 years in the year, 1985. There was hardly any justification to review that order and pass order retiring him prematurely. Plaintiff challenged his premature retirement from government service brought about vide its order dated 20.3.1991 saying that adverse remarks in the ACR for the period 3.1.1986 to 31.3.1986 recorded by Shri K.K.. Gupta on his work and conduct could not be taken into account because Shri K.K. Gupta was inimically disposed towards him for the aforesaid reasons. Adverse remarks against him stood washed off when he was allowed to cross efficiency bar in the year 1991 and also when his reports both preceding and succeeding were good reports containing nothing adverse.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were formed : -