H K SOOD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 02.05.1994 wherein, the period of suspension of the petitioner has been treated as leave of the kind due without affording any opportunity of hearing and issuing any notice to the petitioner.

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he had joined as StenoTypist in the Finance Department in the year 1976 and was promoted as Section Officer and further promoted to the post of Accounts Officer in the year 1986 and became Member of the State Accounts Services. The said post was re-designated as Assistant Controller (Finance & Accounts). He was suspended on 16.04.1992 on account of passing some bills and was charge sheeted on 27.07.1992.

(3.) In the written statement filed by way of a counter affidavit, it was averred that the petitioner's request for personal hearing against the order dated 02.05.1994 was rejected as the charges against the petitioner stood proved as per the inquiry report and the competent authority felt that the petitioner has already been heard in person. The petitioner had admitted the financial irregularities and very conveniently blamed his subordinate Section Officer. The Punjab Public Service Commission had conveyed its approval on 15.12.1995 and the punishment order had been passed on 27.02.1996. The appeals of the petitioner were rejected by the competent authorities after due consideration as the petitioner failed to bring forward any new facts. Another charge sheet had been issued to the petitioner on 06.08.1992 on the basis of report of the Director, Food and Supply Department, Punjab, Chandigarh wherein, he was held responsible for loss of Rs. 30,82,098/- due to carelessness in exercising proper checks as Section Officer. However, taking a lenient view particularly his retirement, it was decided to drop the charge sheet and release his pensionary dues. It was further pleaded that as per Rule 7.3-B of the Punjab Civil Service Rules (Vol. I Part I) (hereinafter referred to as 'The Rules'), a specific order had to be passed regarding the period of suspension as to whether or not it had to be treated as period spent on duty and in view of the fact the Government had agreed to the inquiry report and a show cause notice had been served upon the petitioner, therefore, the period of suspension was treated as leave of the kind due and the punishment order had been passed on 27.02.1996.