MULKH RAJ CHABRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. Mulkh Raj Chabra through present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the order dated September 30, 1991 (Annexure P-2) vide which his three increments were stopped with cumulative effect.

(2.) The brief facts, on which the relief indicated above rests, reveal that petitioner was working as Senior Medical Officer, Chak Sherewala, District Ferozepur in 1988 when he was served with a charge-sheet containing allegations, which as per the case of petitioner, were of minor irregularities. He submitted his reply to the charge-sheet but the disciplinary authority, not being satisfied with the reply, appointed Dr. Ram Lal, the then Additional Director (Food & Drugs), Directorate of Health & Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, after recording evidence in the matter, vide his report dated February 19, 1990 held that the charges against petitioner were not proved. At this stage it shall be relevant to see the findings on all the charges. The charge No. 1 was that the petitioner while posted as Senior Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Chak Sherewala, made irregular payment of pay and allowances to Dr. Ashok Kumar, Incharge, R. D. Bhagsar during February, 1985 to May 1985. The second charge was with regard to the petitioner having recruited Swasthaya Sahayaka for a period exceeding 89 days and that too without involving the Employment Exchange as also made certain payments exceedings Rs. 20/- without affixing revenue stamps. Charge No. 3 was for not maintaining the accounts properly of fans hired and further distributed to various Subsidiary Health Centres in the Block whereas the last charge was that the petitioner received Surgeon's fee without performing sterilization of Shri Makhan Singh, SMI and then deposited the same after some time. While dealing with the charge No. 1, the Enquiry Officer came to a positive finding that the said charge was not proved against petitioner. In so far as the second charge, as noticed above, is concerned, the Enquiry Officer was of the opinion that at occasions the possibility of non-availability of revenue stamps from the Post Offices cannot be ruled out and though it was confirmed that some of the revenue stamps had been affixed later on, yet keeping in view the circumstances and situation, it was not considered as serious irregularity and the payments had been made to the real persons. . With regard to Charge No. 3, a positive findings is arrived at that the said charge had not been proved. While dealing with the last charge, it was opined by the Enquiry Officer that it was only an unintentional irregularity on the part of petitioner for which he could be asked to be careful in future. Regarding Makhan Singh, SMI and other clerical staff, who were responsible for this irregularity, it was opined, that they should be proceeded against departmentally after conducting an enquiry and fixing the responsibility of the same. When the report aforesaid of the Enquiry Officer was received at the end of the Punishing Authority, order (Annexure P-2) stopping three increments with cumulative effect, was passed. It is this order, as indicated above, which has been challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner seems to be right in arguing that the charges against the petitioner were not proved and that being the position, if the Punishing Authority was to come to a different conclusion, the petitioner should have been heard in the matter. It is further maintained by Mr. Mahajan that apart from the report of Enquiry Officer, some other matters of which, petitioner had no notice, were also taken into consideration while giving punishment to him and that course was not open to the respondent-authorities as this would amount to transgression of principles of natural justice for not hearing petitioner and punishing him for the masters, of which he was never apprised of.