DIDAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this court through the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The claim made by the petitioner therein is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated January 27, 1997 passed by the Transport Commissioner, Haryana-respondent No. 2 and the order dated October 8, 1999 passed by the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana-respondent No. 1. The aforesaid orders have been appended as Annexures P/11 and P/13, respectively, with the present petition.

(2.) The petitioner is working as a Superintendent in the Haryana Roadways and is posted in the office of respondent No. 3 - General Manager, Haryana Roadways Depot, Kaithal. On July 12, 1994, the petitioner was suspended and a charge sheet was served upon him with the allegation that he had got one Daya Ram promoted fraudulently under the Backward category though the aforesaid Daya Ram belonged to general category. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated June 4, 1996. A copy of the aforesaid report has been appended as Annexure P/7 with the petition. The Enquiry Officer found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges against him since it was the petitioner who had mentioned backward class against the name of aforesaid Daya Ram, Sub Inspector in his note dated January 14, 1994. The aforesaid Daya Ram was shown in the general category in the gradation list. On the submission of the aforesaid enquiry report, a show cause notice dated August 28, 1996 was served by respondent No. 2-the Transport Commissioner, Haryana upon the petitioner and a penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and restricting the suspension period to the subsistence allowance already paid was proposed. The petitioner submitted his reply. Vide order dated January 27, 1997, the Transport Commissioner-respondent No. 2 after considering the aforesaid reply of the petitioner and after affording personal hearing to him passed the punishment order whereby three annual increments payable to the petitioner were ordered to be stopped with cumulative effect and the payment for the suspension period was restricted to the subsistence allowance. A copy of the aforesaid order has been appended as annexure P/11 with the petition.

(3.) The petitioner felt aggrieved against the punishment order and filed appeal. The aforesaid appeal has been heard by respondent No. 1. The Appellate Authority also found that the petitioner had been rightly found guilty of the charge against him and had rightly been punished. However, a lenient view of the matter was tken by the appellate authority. Accordingly, the punishment was modified and the same was reduced to stoppage of one annual increment only with cumulative effect. A copy of the aforesaid order has been appended as Annexure P/13 with the petition.