B C VERMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved from order dated 23.10.1996 (Annexure P-10) as also order dated 06.05.1996 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to take him back in service to the post of Store keeper with full back wages.

(2.) The petitioner, in pursuance to the appointment letter dated 30.04.1975, had joined as a Clerk with respondent No.2- Moti Lal Nehru School of Sports, Rai and was lateron promoted as Store Keeper vide order dated 26.08.1980(Annexure P-1). He was granted selection grade vide communication of 24.02.1984 (Annexure P-2) and was confirmed as Store keeper w.e.f. 08.01.1987. On 20.07.1993 (Annexure P-3) the petitioner was transferred to District Sports Officer, Yamuna Nagar. The petitioner challenged his transfer order by way of Civil Writ Petition No.8988 of 1993 wherein vide interim order, he was allowed to retain his official accommodation at the school for residence of his family though his transfer order was not stayed. He joined his new place of posting as an Assistant at Yamuna Nagar. Finally, this court quashed the order of transfer dated 20.07.1993 on 17.02.1995 and the petitioner went back to his original posting.

(3.) During his posting at Yamuna Nagar, certain differences emerged between the petitioner and respondent No.3. For certain alleged omissions and commissions, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. His prayer for change of the enquiry officer was not accepted. His prayer for appointment of an advocate on his behalf was also declined. Vide report dated 18.04.1995(Annexure P-6) of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was indicted. Representation of the petitioner levelling allegations of malafides against respondent no.3 was sent to the District Sports Officer, Yamuna Nagar, who had written to respondent No.3 not to proceed further with the matter. It is further averred that despite this direction, order of imposing punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner was made. The appeal was preferred against the said order and in pursuance to the order passed in appeal, order regarding compulsory retirement of the petitioner, was modified and appeal, thus, was partly allowed.