R.K.GARG Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who retired from the post of Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, State of Haryana has filed the instant writ petition impugning the order dated 13.1.2010, Annexure P24, passed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Irrigation Department whereby a penalty of 50% cut in pension has been imposed upon him. Petitioner also questions the validity of the departmental proceedings initiated in the light of charge sheet dated 24.10.2007 and which have finally culminated in the inflicting of penalty of 50% cut in pension.

(2.) Facts in brief would require notice. Petitioner retired from service under the State Government, Irrigation Department on 30.11.2007 upon attaining the age of superannuation. Prior thereto, he was appointed as a Member (Water Supply), Delhi Jal Board, vide orders dated 7.8.2006 initially on deputation basis. He was thereafter re-appointed by the Government of NCT Delhi as Member (Water Supply), post-retirement from the State of Haryana, in the first instance upto 30.11.2009, i.e. the age of 60 years and then given extension for one year upto 30.11.2010.

(3.) Petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 28.3.2007, Annexure P8, alleging that he had been deputed for inspection and submission of report regarding construction of Jewar Tappal Embankment by the U.P. Irrigation Department on the left bank of river Yamuna. It was asserted that the petitioner had furnished a wrong report and had mis-stated that the work had started in U.P. during the incumbency of one Shri S.C.Chawla, Executive Engineer, whereas the MOU was signed on 4.10.2004 by the U.P. Government. Petitioner submitted his reply dated 11.4.2007 clarifying that his report was factually correct and was based upon the reports of the concerned Superintending Engineer and Executive Engineer. The petitioner, in his reply, sought clarification as regards the nature of MOU that had been signed on 4.10.2004 by the U.P. Government and its implication/effect on the commencement of the construction in question. It was also clarified by the petitioner in the reply that he had never been called upon to act as an Enquiry Officer and as such, the show cause notice had been issued without application of mind and was not in bonafide exercise of power, and rather had been issued only to bail out Shri S.C.Chawla and to coerce the petitioner to comply with an order of recall from deputation that had been issued on the same date. It so transpires that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice was not accepted and a charge sheet dated 24.10.2007, Annexure P10, under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 was served upon him on the following charges;