HARCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiffappellant who is aggrieved against the dismissal of the suit and the rejection of his appeal by the lower appellate Court. The suit for declaration was filed by the plaintiff-appellant wherein he had challenged the order dated 07.02.2003 wherein the Director, Food & Supplies Department, Punjab Chandigarh had awarded penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect while disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. An appeal was preferred against the said order before the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, Chandigarh which was rejected on 16.04.2004.

(2.) The case of the appellant is that he was appointed as Sub-Inspector in Food & Supplies Department, Patiala by the District Food & Supplies Controller, Patiala vide memo dated 21.06.1967 through employment exchange and joined his duty on 22.06.1967. His work, conduct and integrity remained satisfactory and he retired on 28.02.2007 as Assistant Food & Supplies Officer. Due to his hard work, honesty and past performance, he was awarded all annual increments and 8, 16 and 24 years step up's under the Punjab Government Circular dated 12/88 and ACP Scheme 98 w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and his pay on these occasions was fixed accordingly. But, he was served charge-sheet on 21.12.2001 by the Director, Food & Supplies, Punjab, Chandigarh to which he filed reply and the Deputy Director (Field) Patiala was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 12.04.2002. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting the enquiry under Rule 5 of Punjab Civil Services (P & A) Rules, 1970 (for brevity, 'the Rules'), gave his findings in which he exonerated the plaintiff-appellant of the charges leveled against him but in spite of that, show cause notice dated 12.09.2002 for imposing a penalty of major punishment under the Rules, was issued to him. The plaintiff-appellant replied to the same by giving parawise replies and denied all the charges which led to the impugned order being passed regarding the stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect vide memo dated 07.02.2003 which is now the subject matter of challenge.

(3.) The pleadings of the plaintiff-appellant reveals that the dispute was regarding purchase of paddy in Mimsa Purchase Centre Near Dhuri. The charge-sheet pertained to bonus on paddy of Dhuri Centre where Mr.R.K.Dania, Inspector Grade-I and Mr.N.K.Malhotra, Inspector Grade-II were posted and they were supposed to prepare prepare the bonus bill of Dhuri Centre.