GURMEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 8.2.2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab directing framing of the charges afresh and holding disciplinary enquiry by appointing a new Enquiry Officer and order dated 7.6.2010 (Annexure P-9) vide which exercising the powers under Rule 21(c) of the Punjab Civil Services- (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') a fresh order has been passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Department of Revenue remitting the case to the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division under the same Rule to reconsider his earlier findings and pass a fresh order after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Challenge has also been made to the charge-sheet dated 18.6.2010 (Annexure P-10), which is purported to have been passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division in compliance with the order dated 7.6.2010 (Annexure P-9), which is in violation of the said order.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that an order in CWP No. 13147 of 1991 titled Hashni Kumar vs. State of Punjab was passed on 16.4.2004, according to which a direction was issued to the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Government of Punjab to consider the fact finding report of Shri B.K. Srivastava, the then Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, which had found irregularities, interpolation and change in marks by some officials while tabulating the result which had a bearing upon the selection and appointment of the Naib Tehsildars. Period of three months was given to the Financial Commissioner to take action which the competent authority may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case including the termination of services of those who were found guilty of securing public employment through dubious means. However, penal action, if any, be also taken against those candidates in accordance with law and after observing principles of natural justice. Officer(s) and official(s) found involved in the malpractice were to be identified and strict disciplinary action were to be taken against them within a period of six months from the date of receipt certified copy of the order. The final action taken against the officers/officials as well as against the candidates who were prima facie found guilty of securing appointments by illegal means were to be reported to this Court as well. With these observations the writ petition was disposed of.

(3.) In pursuance to the directions issued by this Court Financial Commissioner Revenue held a detailed enquiry and found the selection of the petitioner to be suffering from no infirmity and observed that no further action was needed to be taken against any of the officers mentioned/named in the report of Shri B.K. Srivastava, the then Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. The report of the Financial Commissioner Revenue dated 28.7.2004 is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2.