LAWS(P&H)-2013-2-560

DHARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

Decided On February 14, 2013
DHARAM SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the charge sheet dated 29.10.1987(Annexure P-1) issued to the petitioner by the Government of Punjab, Department of Vigilance and show cause notice dated 30.1.1990 (Annexure P-2) whereby penalty of dismissal from service was proposed to be imposed upon him.

(2.) The allegation levelled against the petitioner who was serving as a Junior Engineer was that during the period from 1.1.1981 to 31.3.1982, he had built a house at Rampura Phul on which he spent Rs. 97153/- thereby he incurred expenditure disproportionate to his known sources and the enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer, Vigilance Department, Punjab. The petitioner had objected to the jurisdiction of the Enquiry Officer-respondent no.2 to hold enquiry on the plea that he was a non-gazetted officer. The charge sheet dated 29.10.1987 was served relating to a matter for the period from 1.1.1981 to 31.3.1982, which was a stale one.

(3.) That in the written statement, it has been pleaded that the petitioner had been given full opportunity to give his view point. The enquiry was with jurisdiction as it pertained to indulgence in corruption by the petitioner by acquiring disproportionate assets to his known sources of income and, therefore, issuance of show cause notice dated 30.1.1990 was within the jurisdiction of respondent no.1. The enquiry was started against the petitioner on the basis of a complaint and a check period was fixed from 1.1.1981 to 31.3.1983 to calculate the income and expenditure and it took long time in the collection of documents from various quarters. The enquiry was completed in the year 1987 and it was established that the petitioner was guilty of acquiring disproportionate assets beyond his known source of income. Thus, there was no delay in initiating action against the petitioner.