BISHAMBAR LAL Vs. THE 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 16th July 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 7th September, 1956, a payment of Rs. 55 was made to one Harlal, Beldar, by the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bighar Sub -Division. Soon after it Carrie 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 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 13th October, 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 27th January, 1959, 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 2nd February, 1959, and requested these copies to be supplied to him by 6th February, 1959. He did not hear anything in reply and he was, consequently, forced to submit his explanation on 5th March, 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 7th September, 1956, he dishonestly produced a false person before the Sub -Divisional Officer and got him paid Rs. 55 on account of the un disbursed 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 7th September, 1956) produced before him, the Petitioner again produced the said papers before the Sub -Divisional Officer on 12th September, 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 17th September, 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 he 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 28th March, 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 22nd December, 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 25th January, 1961, 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 a 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 5th March, 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 5th October, 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 16th July, 1962, dismissing him from service. This led to the filing of the present writ petition on 12th September, 1962.

(3.) AS regards the first contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, there is no merit in the same. Action was taken; by the Government under Rule 14 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. This Rule runs thus - -