BISHAMBAR LAL DAYA CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by bishamber Lal against the State of Punjab challenging the legality of the order dated 16-7-1962 passed by the Secretary to the Government, Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department, dismissing him from service.

(2.) ACCORDING to the allegations of the petitioner, he joined as a Store-keeper in the irrigation Department in 1951 and was posted in Hissar-II-Bhakra. In 1954, he was transferred to the Bighar Sub-Division. On 7-9-1956, a payment of Rs. 55/was made to one Harlal, Beldar, by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bighar Sub-Division. Soon after it came to light that this payment was made wrongly, because the person, who posed to be Harlal, was in fact, not that person since Harlal had died long ago. The petitioner was not responsible for getting this wrong payment made, because this was not a part of his duty, but even then the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Executive Engineer, Fatehabad Division, Hissar, asked his explanation about the circumstances in which the said payment was made. On 13-10-1956, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the Executive Engineer and maintained that he was completely innocent and was not at fault with regard to this payment. For over two years, the petitioner did not hear anything from his superior officers, when suddenly he received a statement of charges dated 27-11959 from the Superintending Engineer II-Bhakra Main Line, Hissar, in regard to the payment of this sum of Rs. 55/ -. He was also suspended with effect from the same date. In order to give an effective reply to these charges, the petitioner requested the Executive Engineer to supply him copies of certain documents. He made this application on 2-2-1959 and requested these copies to be supplied to him by 6-2-1959. He did not hear anything in reply and he was, consequently, forced to submit his explanation on 5-3-1959 without perusing these documents. The petitioner stated that the allegations against him were baseless and he was in no way responsible for the charges levelled against him. After he had sent his reply, the petitioner received a copy of the letter written by the Executive Engineer to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bighar Sub-Division, in which it was mentioned that the documents asked for were either not in existence or were with the Anti-Corruption Department, and therefore, not available for the petitioner's inspection. Subsequently, a charge was framed against the petitioner to the effect that on 79-1956 he dishonestly produced a false person before the Sub-Divisional Officer and got him paid Rs. 55/- on account of the undisbursed pay of Harlal, Beldar, for the month of September 1955, the real person having died long before. The charge further went on to say that as the Sub-Divisional Officer had missed to attest the thumb-impression of the payee on the hand receipt (Voucher No. 20 dated 7-9-1956) produced before him, the petitioner again produced the said papers before the Sub-Divisinal Officer on 12-9-1956 and on the latter's enquiry made a false statement before him alleging that the payee had brought a chit from his Overseer regarding his identity and that the said chit was lying in his office. Thus, on this false representation, he fraudulently secured the attestation of the sub-Divisional Officer on the voucher. A departmental enquiry was then conducted against the petitioner by Shri U. S. Kohli, General Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar, who found that the charge had been brought home against him. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 17-9-1959 by the Superintending Engineer, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from Government service. In reply to this notice, the petitioner challenged the findings of the Enquiry Officer and submitted that the said officer had erred in relying upon the witnesses, who had been examined before him. It was also pointed out that the original voucher was not forthcoming and on that account he was greatly prejudiced in his defence. A prayer was made that lie might be exonerated from the charge and also be given an opportunity to explain his case through a lawyer. The Superintending Engineer rejected the prayer for his representation through a lawyer and asked him to attend in person. Subsequently, on 28-3-1960 the Superintending Engineer cancelled the order of his suspension and decided that his increment be withheld for two years with future effect. According to the petitioner, though he had been wrongly punished by the Superintending Engineer, yet considering the protracted harassment that had preceded the enquiry, he did not choose to take up this matter any further, and joined duty in the same Department. On 22-12-1960, he was shocked to receive another notice from the Executive engineer under Rule 14 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal)Rules, 1952, asking him to show cause as to why the penalty imposed upon him by the Superintending Engineer be not enhanced to one of dismissal. On 25-11961 he sent a reply to ,the Secretary of the Irrigation Department, in which he gave detailed reasons for showing that he was innocent and had been victim of conspiracy hatched by the Sub-Divisional Officer, who was the real culprit, in collusion with his subordinates, who were under his influence. He also pointed out that he had sent a reply on 5-3-1959 to the Superintending Engineer and in that he had explained the entire position and prayed that the said reply be treated as a part of his representation. He also stated that he had submitted another letter dated 5-10-1959 in reply to the show cause notice issued by the Superintending engineer in which he had given detailed reasons to show that the report of the enquiry Officer be not accepted, as he had come to an incorrect conclusion. Further, the petitioner gave a detailed reply explaining his position and requested that before any action was taken against him, he should be heard personally and should also be allowed to engage a counsel. He did not hear anything in reply and instead received a notice dated 16-7-1962 dismissing him from service. This led to the filing of the present writ petition on 12-9-1962.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions before me: