HARYANA STATE Vs. KISHNI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dated 2.4.1986, Shri B.L. Singhal, Senior Subordinate Judge, Karnal passed the following punishments upon Dhiru Ram who was working as Civil Nazir in the Court of Senior Subordinate Judge, Karnal : (i) Reversion from Civil Nazir to the post of Naib Nazir. (ii) Reduction in his pay scale from Rs. 660/- to 400/- for a period of two years. (iii) Stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect.

(2.) Dhiru Ram challenged the said ser of punishments on the administrative side in the High Court. High Court vide order dated 22.9.1998 dismissed his appeal. Dhiru Ram challenged the order of the High Court dated 22.9.1988 into which the s of Senior Subordinate Judge, Karnal dated 2.4.1986 stood merged by means of civil suit No. 571 of 1991 filed by him in the Civil Court at Karnal. It was alleged in the plaint that the said order of punishments was illegal, void ab-initio, mala fide, arbitrary, against the provisions contained in the High Court Rules and Orders sarding punishment and also against the provisions of ss 311(2) of the Constitution of India. It was alleged in the plaint that the punishing authority was biased and prejudiced against him. Punishing authority conducted preliminary enquiry, framed charge sheet, conducted regular departmental enquiry, served show cause notice proposing punishment and inflicted punishment himself which is against the rules of natural justice. Senior Subordinate Judge could not be prosutor as well as judge. He had pre-judged the correctness of the charges against him and the enquiry was a mere farce. For single mis-conduct, three fold punishments were imposed upon him which were major punishments. No reasonable opportunity was given to him before the imposition of punishments. The findings of the punishing authority were based on presumptions, conjectures and surmises. He had not committed any misconduct and the department had not suffered any wrongful loss by his alleged misconduct nor he had been put to any wrongful gain. National Savings Certificates were not purchased by him due to non-supply of requisite information by the officials concerned. He could not be held responsible for the shortage of cash in hand at the time of checking by the competent authority because the latter had not checked the cash book and the chest.

(3.) State of Haryana contested the suit, urging that the suit is barred by time. Regular enquiry was held in accordance with law. He as given due opportunity. He retained money in his possession from 27.9.1984 to 18.9.1985 without any order. He thus committed misconduct.