SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 20.4.1995 (Annexure P7) vide which he was reduced to lower scale than the one at which he was working at that time. He is also aggrieved against the order dated 12.12.1995 (Annexure P12) vide which his appeal was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as a Peon in the office of Command Area Development Authority, Haryana at Rewari. On 1.11.1991, he was promoted to the post of Clerk. In the month of July, 1994, he was deputed for election duty and in his absence it was found that he has failed to despatch as many as 18 letters, embezzled government postal stamps to the tune of Rs. 50 and has also delayed the despatch of one cheque. Petitioner was charge sheeted on 7.11.1994 and he was asked to file reply to the charges levelled against him. Petitioner denied all the allegations levelled against him by filing a reply Annexure P4. The competent authority being not satisfied with this reply, appointed respondent No. 5 as an Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry and submitted his report Annexure P5, opining that the petitioner is guilty of indisipline and creating of obstacle in the work of the office and he has embezzled the postal stamps. After receipt of enquiry report, again show cause notice was given to the petitioner for imposing punishment i.e. dismissal. Thereafter order Annexure P7 was passed on 20.4.1995, ordering his reduction to the lower scale from where he was promoted. Petitioner filed an appeal and a representation which were dismissed vide Annexure P9 and P12. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. M.S. Yadav, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that orders Annexure P7 and P12 cannot be sustained since the punishment order has been passed without holding any proper enquiry. It has been stated that the petitioner was not having good relations with respondents No. 5. He made allegations against him while filing reply to the charge sheet but still, respondent No. 5 was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. He also stated that his application for change of the Enquiry Officer was dismissed without any reason. On merits, he stated that a complaint against him was the creation of respondent No. 5 who was inimical to him and petitioner has tried to justify the fact that he has not committed any mistake and the charges levelled against him are false.