SURINDER KUMAR MALIK Vs. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the na ture of Certiorari for quashing the order dated July 11, 2.000 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh whereby a penalty of with-holding five increments with Cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. A further prayer has been made to quash the order dated February 15, 2001 passed by the Finance Secretary- cum-Secretary Local Self Government, Chandigarh Administration respondent No. 4 and also the order dated July 18, 2001 passed by the Advisor to the Administrator, LIT, Chandigarh. The aforesaid orders have been appended as Annexure P.11, P. 12 and P.13 respectively with the present petition.

(2.) On October 19, 1995, the petitioner was working as Superintendent Grade II with Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. He has averred that in the aforesaid capacity, he was required to deal with the cases of effecting the recovery of instalments which were pending since many years; On March 9, 1998, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet by the Commissioner. In the aforesaid charge sheet, the petitioner was charged that he had not calculated the annual equated amount of instalments including interest of commercial sites as per the prescribed formula and if, the aforesaid lapse has not been detected in time, the same would have caused a loss of Rs. 88,15,911/- to the Corporation. Subsequently, an Enquiry Officer for conducting the enquiry under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 was appointed. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry ad submitted his report dated December 14, 1999 holding the petitioner guilty. The Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation agreed with the enquiry report and imposed a major penalty of withholding five annual increments with cumulative effect. A copy of the punishment order passed by the Commissioner dated July 11, 2000 has been appended as Annexure P.11 with the petition.

(3.) The petitioner felt aggrieved and filed an appeal against the punishment order before the Finance Secretary, respondent No. 4. The aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated February 15, 2001. The aforesaid appellate order passed by respondent No. 4 has been appended as Annexure P.12 with the petition. Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Advisor to the Administrator. The aforesaid revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Advisor and a communication in this regard was sent to the petitioner on July 18, 2001. A copy of the aforesaid communication has: been appended as Annexure P. 13 with the petition.