HARVINDER SINGH PROCESS SERVER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as a Process Server in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dasuya. In pursuance to a preliminary inquiry, he was served with a charge-sheet vide Memorandum dated 17th January, 2001. The allegation against the petitioner was that on the night of 10th April, 2000, he had joined hands with Dalip Kumar, the Court Chowkidar, who had "brought a woman in the Court Complex for immoral purposes". The petitioner submitted his reply. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority appointed the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, as the Inquiry Officer. Vide his report, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P. 6 with the writ petition, the Inquiry Officer found that on the night of 10th April, 2000, Dalip Kumar, Chowkidar had brought a woman for immoral purposes in the Court Complex at Dasuya and that Harvinder Singh, the present petitioner, had joined hands with him. The charge was, thus, held to be proved. The petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice. A copy of the Inquiry Report was also supplied to him. The petitioner submitted his reply. Thereafter, he was given personal hearing. Then, the District and Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, passed the order dated 13th December, 2001. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P. 9 with the writ petition. He found that as the Chowkidar and the petitioner were "over busy in availing the service of a woman they had arranged for immoral purposes", a theft had taken place in the Judicial Complex on the night intervening 10th/11th April, 2000. After taking into consideration the gravity of misconduct, he held that dismissal from service would be "the only suitable punishment to be awarded to both the delinquent officials. . . ".

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order of punishment, the petitioner filed a Service Appeal. It was posted before an Hon'ble Judge of this Court. The petitioner was duly represented by a Senior Advocate. After hearing the counsel, the learned Judge dismissed the Appeal vide order dated 25th July, 2002. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P. 11 with the writ petition. His Lordship found that the charge against the petitioner was duly proved. Hence this petition.

(3.) THE solitary contention raised by Shri Sarwan Singh, Senior Advocate, is that there is no credible evidence to establish the charge against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the incident is alleged to have taken place at about 9 P. M. on 10th April, 2000. Raj Kumar, the only witness, on whose testimony reliance has been placed could not have seen any thing in the dark. Thus, the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer as well as the Punishing and the Appellate Authorities cannot be sustained.