SARITA KUMARI Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the constitution of India praying for the quashing of the charge-sheet dated 22. 12. 1992 and further praying for stay of disciplinary proceedings during the pendency of the case instituted against them, which is pending in the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction.

(2.) THE facts are that the petitioners are working in Punjab State Electricity Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board. Petitioner No. 1 is working as Audit Clerk and petitioners No. 2 and 3 are working as Revenue Accountant and Cashier respectively. They were working on these posts even during the relevant period. During the audit inspection of accounts of Daresi Road Sub Division, certain irregularities in the maintenance of accounts were detected and the Board lodged an F. I. R. bearing No. 87 dated 19. 9. 1991 in the Police Station, Division No. 4, Ludhiana F. I. R. was registered under Sections 167/201/409/467/468/120-B of the Indian Penal Code against 14 employees which included all the three petitioners. The Board placed all these persons including the three petitioners under suspension vide order dated 13. 12. 1991 except petitioner No. 1 who was on maternity leave at that time. As stated, during the investigation, petitioners No. 2 and 3 were found to be innocent and were discharged by the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, dated 26. 2. 1992. Application was filed by the prosecution to get these two petitioners discharged, while petitioner No. 1 was not discharged and the proceedings are pending even presently before the said Court. Suspension orders against petitioners No. 2 and 3 were withdrawn by the orders of the competent authority on 11. 3. 1992 and 20. 5. 1992 respectively. The Board had served a charge-sheet upon all the 14 employees who were involved earlier in the criminal case, but no steps were taken in these proceedings till 21. 4. 1994 when the Board appointed Shri Jagjit Singh, Chief Engineer Enforcement of the Board, as Enquiry Officer, to hold an enquiry against all those 18 persons including all the three petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 appears to have made a representation to the authorities on 25. 8. 1994 submitting therein that the departmental proceedings should be stayed against him till the pendency of the criminal case. The F. I. R. which was lodged on behalf of the Board on 14. 9. 1991 stated that the instructions of the Board were systematically violated, with ulterior motive of embezzling the funds of the Board by the officials concerned and amounts had been collected from the consumers more than what were deposited in the Board's accounts. It was further stated that false documents were prepared and records were misplaced in conspiracy with each other and consequently the F. I. R. was registered against them under the above mentioned provisions of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner No. 1 has challenged the commencement and criteria of the disciplinary proceedings as well as prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet while petitioners No. 2 and 3 have restricted their relief to the quashing of the charge-sheet dated 22. 12. 1992.

(3.) NO replication has been filed on record. Before dealing with the case of petitioner No. 1 it will be appropriate to discuss the case of petitioners No. 2 and 3, who were admittedly discharged by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class vide his order dated 26. 2. 1992 at the request of the prosecution. They were discharged and not acquitted on the merits of the case. The discharge was given to them by the Magistrate on a concession of the prosecution which had stated that they were found innocent, and could not substantiate the criminal offences, as stated in the F. I. R. against them before Court. The discharge of these petitioners by the leaned Magistrate cannot, therefore, give them advantage and entitle them to a relief of quashing of the charge-sheet. In any case, the charge is not identical to that of the contents of the F. I. R.