HARISH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of charge -sheet dated 29.10.2010 on the ground that a fresh charge sheet cannot be issued to him after inordinate delay that too after having been proceeded against for the same very allegation and which order was interfered with by the appellate authority,

(2.) THE petitioner, who was working as Junior Engineer (Panchayati Raj), was served a charge sheet on 16.03.1998 under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'punishment rules'), while he was serving with the office of Block Development and Panchayat officer, Barara. 13 charges were levelled against the petitioner. No list of witnesses and documents relied upon were ever supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 06.11.1998. The respondent on 31.03.2000 appointed Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ambala as inquiry officer to inquire into the charges. The inquiry officer submitted his report holding that none of the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. Respondent No. 2 then issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 30.05.2002 stating that out of 13 charges, charge Nos. 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 were proved. Charges No. 2, 8 and 9 were with regard to the shortage of the material in the development work. In the show cause notice, recovery of Rs. 72,298/ - was proposed. As per the petitioner, the course was adopted after changing track to award minor penalty whereas the inquiry had been held under Rule 7 of the said Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. Copy of the inquiry report was also not supplied to the petitioner alongwith the show cause notice. As per the counsel, it was only show cause notice which was issued and no order regarding the dissent was recorded by the punishing authority.

(3.) THE petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice where after respondent No. 2 directed recovery of Rs. 72,298/ - on 5/13.04.2006. Besides, it was directed that the suspension period from 09.12.1996 to 06.03.1997 be treated as leave of kind due.