JATINDER AMAR, GODOWN ASSISTANT Vs. PUNJAB STATE WARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Manager Grade III in July, 1972 by the Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). Subsequently, the post was redesignated as Godown Assistant. In the year 1975, he was posted as Manager, Gehri Mandi with additional charge of Warehouse at Jandiala Guru. It is alleged that during his tenure, two thefts took place, i.e., one in the night of 14/15-7-1975 at Gehri Mandi and allegedly 35 bags of Wheat were stolen. The second theft took place in the night intervening between 11/12-9-1975 at Jandiala Guru and 55 bags of Wheat were allegedly stolen. It is alleged that at Gehri Mandi a wall of godown No. 19 was broken and at Jandiala Guru, the locks of store were broken open by the thieves for the purpose of committing the alleged theft.

(2.) The petitioner lodged first information reports with the police in the morning of 15.7.1975 and 12.9.1975. Despite the reports having been lodged, the police authorities after sometime communicated to the department that in both the situations, no case of theft could be said to have been made out. The petitioner wrote a letter to the Inspection Officer of the Corporation at Amritsar complaining that due to some ulterior reasons, the investigation has not been carried out properly and that the case is being sought to be closed by the police by fixing the liability allegedly upon the employees of the Corporation. Resultantly, Chaman Lal Inspection Officer was deputed by the Corporation to hold enquiry on the spot and submit the report accordingly. Upon detailed investigation, the report was submitted, opining that the report of the police authorities does not seem to be correct. Despite this, the Corporation did not take any action as none has been divulged to the petitioner. It is also alleged that the Managing Director of the Corporation wrote a communication dated 26.7.1977 to the senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar asking him to register a case against the petitioner or any other employee of the Corporation who according to him are involved in the defalcations. However, no action was taken in the matter.

(3.) Instead, the Corporation served a charge sheet upon the petitioner on 22.12.1978. The petitioner requested for obtainment of the documents so that he could submit an effective reply to the charges. He specifically asked for the investigation report made by the Inspection Officer appointed by the Corporation. He also asked for the copies of the letters written by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar i.e., letters dated 8.9.1975 and 12.12.1975. None of the above said documents were supplied to the petitioner. A reply was submitted by the petitioner without perusal of the above said documents as none had been supplied. An Enquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 21.7.1979. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer. No witness was examined by the Enquiry Officer as none had been sought to be summoned by the prosecution. It shall be apposite to mention here that in the list of witnesses, the name of the petitioner had been given. However, the petitioner was not produced as a witness, despite the fact that he was present before the Enquiry Officer. Since no statements were recorded by any of the witnesses, the documents were also not proved accordingly nor any such document had been produced before the Enquiry Officer to the knowledge of the petitioner. Thus, the opportunity or the question of cryptical analysis by the petitioner of such documents did not arise. The petitioner had also not been given any opportunity to produce any evidence or produce any documents accordingly.