LAWS(P&H)-2013-11-28

KULWINDER SINGH DHALIWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On November 27, 2013
Kulwinder Singh Dhaliwal Appellant
V/S
The State of Punjab and Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 05.02.2008 (Annexure P-1), whereby penalty of dismissal from service has been imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner, born on 01.06.1967, joined as Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 14.02.1996. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 26.09.2003 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against him. A charge-sheet dated 08.03.2004 (Annexure P-3) was served upon the petitioner under Rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules'). The Article of Charges contained in the charge-sheet are as under:

(2.) The petitioner filed reply. He denied the charges. However, a regular departmental enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the District & Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Haryana, as the reply was found to be unsatisfactory. The District & Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Haryana submitted enquiry report dated 26.07.2006. In such enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer recorded the statements of Shri Jaswant Singh, Driver of the District & Sessions Judge, Patiala as PW-1; Constable Avtar Singh, Gunman of the District & Sessions Judge, Patiala as PW 2; Ms. Jatinder Walia as PW-3 and Shri Shiva Nand, Superintendent of Confidential Branch, Punjab & Haryana High Court as PW-4. On the other hand, the petitioner examined Shri Jasbir Singh, a transporter as RW-1; Shri Baljinder Singh, a draftsman as RW-2 and also appeared as his own witness as RW-3. After considering the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, the learned Enquiry Officer, in respect of first Article of Charge, recorded a finding that knocking the door twice or thrice at an early hours of the evening is not proved to be unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. He concluded as under:

(3.) In respect of the second Article of Charge, the Enquiry Officer concluded as under: