PARMA NAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the charge sheet dated 21.1.994 (Annexure P-1) which had been issued for the incidents relating to year 1986 mainly on the ground of delay and the fact that the senior employee had already stood exonerated in the year 1991. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was working as Junior Engineer with the Punjab P.W.D. (B & R) Branch in the year 1986 and posted as such for construction of Dholwala Bari Khad Road in District Hoshiapur for a short period of about 3-1/2 months around March/June under Sh. K.L. Jetely, Sub Divisional Engineer (S.D.E.). He was issued Muster Rolls for earth work in April/May, 1986 and got the work executed and the superior Officer S.D.E. was responsible for the quality of the work and if satisfied with the same would make the payment to the labour employed. The payment was made in his presence but he did not make any payment which was done by the S.D.E. The work had been executed as required and he regularly submitted all papers and reports concerning the work. No objection was taken by any one in respect of anything done or not done at that time.

(2.) In the year 1987, there was some complaint regarding the quality of work being executed on the said road and charge sheet was issued to Mr. K.L. Jetely, S.D.E. in August, 1988 and out of 14 charges one of the charge pertained to the alleged embezzlement made by him for the said work including the earth work under charge No. 10. In reply, the S.D.E. with respect to splitting of responsibilities had submitted that a J.E. was responsible for the progress; the S.D.E. was responsible for the quality and all financial control was with the Xen, who was to be guided by the SE and CE. The said officer was punished by way of simple warning vide memo dated 4.1.1991. Thereafter, second enquiry was sought to be started against him regarding the same matter and he approached the Civil Court and succeeded and that decree was upheld up to the High Court on 31.3.1993. Thereafter, respondents decide to make scapegoat out of the petitioner who had executed only a small amount of earth work for which payment had been made by the S.D.E. and accordingly a charge sheet was issued on 21.1.1994. The petitioner submitted his reply in May, 1994 but respondents did not drop the charges and accordingly challenge was made by filing the present writ petition on the ground that after 7 years, the charge sheet was liable to be quashed on the ground of delay alone. Secondly, disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against Sh. K.L. Jetely and no proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner and thus there could be no embezzlement or misappropriation since the money was paid by the S.D.E. directly to the labour and petitioner was not associated with the disbursement of the said amount.

(3.) In the written statement, the State has submitted that the temporary Muster Roll for executing the earth work in April/May, 1986 was issued and the progress of the work was to be done through the daily labour employed on the temporary Muster Roll and in part II of the Muster Roll as required under the Building and Roads Manual and Departmental Financial Rules, progress should have been recorded and duly checked by the petitioner. He failed to record the progress and payment for the work had been done on the basis of progress recorded for which the petitioner was solely responsible. It was admitted that complaint had been received during 1987 and that Sh. K.L. Jetely had been charge sheeted for various irregularities but had been let off by giving a written warning. However, since the duties and responsibilities of the S.D.E. and J.E. were entirely different and petitioner had committed serious irregularities by not entering the progress of the work done by temporary labour employed on Temporary Muster Roll as such he was personally responsible. Accordingly, he had committed irregularities involving Rs. 1,88,176/- and was charge sheeted. The petitioner had been given an opportunity to explain his position but instead of explaining his position he had come to this Court without exhausting the departmental remedy available to him. Reference was also made to filing of civil suit by the petitioner along with other plaintiffs and restraining the official respondents from proceeding with the enquiry and interim order passed by the said Court.