KULDIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition was appointed Poultry Inspector in the Industries Department by the Director of Industries, Punjab, Chandigarh, on August 26, 1964. The appointment was temporary and he petitioner was to be governed by the Punjab Industries Department (State Service Class III) Rules, 1956. One of the conditions of the appointment letter was that the services could be terminated on either side after giving one month's notice. The relevant clause in the appointment letter reads as under :-

(2.) The petitioner was suspended by the Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, Chandigarh, by order dated June 6, 1968, and the petitioner sent his resignation to the said Director on June 15, 1968. The Director, Animal Husbandry, refused to accept the resignation by Memorandum dated July 5, 1968. In the meantime, on June 29, 1968, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet, to which the petitioner submitted a reply. The Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, however, not feeling satisfied with the explanation, appointed an Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer sent a communication to the petitioner by registered post on July 21, 1969, informing him that the enquiry against him would be conducted on July 29, 1969. This letter was received back undelivered by the Enquiry Officer before he left for Ropar on July 28, 1969. The Enquiry Officer then sent a telegram to the petitioner requiring him to appear before him for enquiry at Ropar on July 29, 1969. In response to this telegram, the Enquiry Officer received a telegram from the father of the petitioner at 4-40 P.M. on July 29, 1969, that the petitioner had gone out somewhere and that he may be summoned for some other date. The Enquiry Officer had already completed his enquiry before the receipt of this telegram by recording a joint statement of 9 witnesses, as is disclosed by his enquiry report dated July 30, 1969. However, the petitioner was given an opportunity to appear before the Enquiry Officer on August 4, 1969. On that date, the petitioner appeared and made the statement. He was cross-examined by the Enquiry Officer and a number of questions were put to him which were duly answered thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted another report affirming his previous report. On the basis of that report, the petitioner was served with a notice to show cause why the punishment of dismissal from service should not be imposed on him. The petitioner submitted a reply, but the Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, dismissed him from service by Memorandum dated February 18, 1970, a copy of which is Annexure 'E' to the writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal from service.

(3.) Written statement has been filed by the Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, in which the impugned order in the petition but, in my view, the petition deserves to succeed on the short ground that the enquiry was not held in accordance with the provisions of rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1962, which were then in force. Although, the charge-sheet was served on the petitioner along with the statement of allegations, no list of witnesses to be examined at the enquiry or the documents to be produced was delivered to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer's report shows that he examined 9 witnesses who were the President, Treasurer and members of the Ropar Co-operative Poultry Society Limited. These persons gave a joint statement which was recorded on the spot. Admittedly, the names of these witnesses were never disclosed to the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer submitted his ex-parte report on July 30, 1969, and thereafter asked the petitioner to appear before him on August 4, 1969. If the Enquiry Officer had decided to give an opportunity to the petitioner, he should have examined those 9 witnesses in his presence by affording him an opportunity of cross-examining them. The Enquiry Officer himself put certain questions to the petitioner and recorded his answers. The petitioner was never asked to produce any witness. It is stated by the Director, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, that the petitioner never asked for an opportunity to produce his defence. He would have made such a request if he had been apprised of the nature of the proceedings that the Enquiry Officer was holding. The petitioner states that he was under the impression that a fact finding enquiry was being held. In any case, the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, and the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer knew on July 28, 1969, that the petitioner had not been served with the communication informing him that the enquiry would be held on July 29, 1969. A telegram sent to a village of the petitioner cannot be expected to reach him so soon as to enable him to reach the place of enquiry in time. The telegram was sent to the petitioner on July 28, 1969, to appear before the Enquiry Officer on July 29, 1969, and in reply to that telegram, a telegram was received from him father at 4-40 P.M. on that date that the petitioner was out of station and he should be summoned fro some other date. In spite of a telegram having been received from the father of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on the basis of a joint statement made by 9 witnesses who had appeared before him. For this it is evident that the Enquiry Officer had a biased mind and, therefore, he submitted an ex-parte report. The so-called opportunity afforded to the petitioner on August 4, 1969, cannot be said to be sufficient compliance with the provisions of the rule. Admittedly, the witnesses examined on July 29, 1969, were not re-examined in his presence and, therefore, he had no opportunity to cross examine them. The impugned order of punishment is based on that enquiry report and is, therefore, liable to be quashed.