HEM RAJ GOEL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order of petitioner's reversion passed on Nov. 22, 1982 as also the failure of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to comply with the directions of the Government given vide letter dated Feb. 2, 1987. Facts as given by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk on Jan. 27, 1956. In the year 1967, the petitioner was working as a Head Clerk-cum-Accountant. One Oct. 16, 1967, the petitioner was placed under suspension. A charge-sheet was given to him almost two years later in the year 1969. After receipt of petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet, a sub-committee was appointed to enquiry into the matter. This sub-committee submitted a report. The primary charges levelled against the petitioner were not established. However, the sub-committee opined that the petitioner was guilty of negligence. As a result, the Market Committee, Mansa (respondent No. 3) which was the petitioner's employer, passed a resolution on April 2, 1973 accepting the sub-committee's report. It ordered that the petitioner's two increments be stopped with cumulative effect. On April 4, 1973 this resolution was communicated to the petitioner and he was ordered to be reinstated. The operation of this resolution was suspended by the Chairman of the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred to as the Board). The petitioner's attempt to challenge this action of the Chairman through C.W.P. No. 1438 of 1973 having failed, the Board annulled the resolution on June 22, 1973. It is not disputed that this resolution was annulled by the Board only on the ground that the matter regarding the petitioner's case was not on the agenda of the committee for its meeting held on April 2, 1973. The action of the Board in annulling the resolution of the Market Committee as also that of Committee allowing the petitioner to continue on reinstatement was challenged in CWP No. 2324 of 1973. This writ petition was allowed by this Court on March 15, 1982. A copy of this judgment is at Annexure P.1. The learned Judge found that there was no justification in keeping the petitioner under suspension and his fate "hanging so callously." As a result, it was directed that the petitioner be reinstated and the Market Committee was directed to "decide the case of the petitioner within a period of three months......." Accordingly, the Committee passed an order dated April 15, 1982 reinstating the petitioner. It further proceeded to hold a de novo enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner. This time, the petitioner was held to be guilty of the charges levelled against him. As a result, a resolution was passed on Nov. 22, 1982 ordering that the petitioner be reverting from the post of Head Clerk-cum-Accountant to that of Mandi Supervisor, and further that the subsistence allowance paid to the petitioner during the period of suspension should be treated as salary for the period. The order was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated Nov. 23, 1982 by which he was only informed of his revision and not regarding the fact that he would not be paid anything besides the subsistence allowance for the period during which he had remained under suspension. Mr. Gupta has further pointed out to me in the narration of facts that the petitioner had actually stated before the enquiry committee that he was willing to accept the order of reversion and that he would not file any appeal against the punishment imposed on him. However, after the communication of the order dated Nov. 22, 1982, the petitioner submitted a petition dated Jan. 3, 1983 to the Chairman of the Board under section 33(4)(1) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for the annulment of the order of punishment. In this representation, it was categorically mentioned by the petitioner that the 'writing' had been obtained by the subcommittee from him under coercion. The order of punishment and the proceedings that preceded it were challenged inter alia on the ground that the committee had no jurisdiction to order a fresh enquiry and that the major penalty has been imposed without following the procedure laid down under the rules as also without giving him a show-cause notice. It appears that this representation was not decided by the Board for a considerable length of time. The petitioner was compelled to submit a representation to the Govt. This representation appears to have been submitted on July 15, 1986. In pursuance thereto, the Govt. of Punjab issued an order dated Feb. 2, 1987. The petitioner thereafter submitted certain other representations. When no action was taken and the order of the Govt. dated Feb. 2, 1987 which had been passed was not implemented by respondent No. 2 viz. the Board the petitioner approached this Court through the present writ petition. The order of reversion dated Nov. 22, 1982 (Annexure P-7) and the action of the respondents in not paying the petitioner the full salary for the period of suspension have inter alia been challenged on the grounds that the action is without jurisdiction and violative of the principles of natural justice.

(3.) No written statement has been filed on behalf of the State of Punjab. However, a written statement has been filed on behalf of the Board and the Market Committee, by the Secretary of the Market Committee. Besides a preliminary objection of delay, it has been inter alia mentioned that the petitioner having given an undertaking in writing before the enquiry committee "that he has go no objection if he is posted as Mandi Supervisor-cum-Fee Collector," it has been averred that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the impugned order. It has further been averred that the order of reversion as also the action of the Committee in not allowing full pay and allowances for the period during which the petitioner remained under suspension is absolutely legal and valid. On these points, the claim of the petitioner has been controverted.