BALJIT SINGH GREWAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Baljit Singh Grewal-the petitioner retired as Executive Engineer from PWD (B&R), Patiala. He has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing charge-sheet dated December 7,1984-Annexure P.3 initiating departmental proceedings against him and for quashing order dated September 27, 1991 Annexure P.10, whereby Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold departmental enquiry. He further prayed for release of retirement benefits such a gratuity, leave encashment etc. which have been withheld on account of pendency of the aforesaid enquiry.

(2.) The petitioner joined as Sectional Officer (Horticulture) Punjab P.W.D.B & R,Capital Project, Chandigarh on February 2, 1961. He was promoted as Sub-Divisional Engineer (Horticulture) on February 12, 1970. He was further promoted as Executive Engineer (Horticulture) on September 27, 1978. On May 3, 1983 he was placed under suspension on the ground of contemplation of enquiry with the allegation of misappropriation in committing official irregularities-copy of the order is Annexure P. 1. Since no action was taken for about a year he was reinstated vide order Annexure P.2 dated May 24,1984. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on the allegation that during the year 1978-79 to 1982-83, he failed to check the official irregularities committed by Ajmer Singh. Accounts Clerk, working under him, who had misappropriated/embezzled certain amounts, Annexure P.3 is the copy of the charge- sheet. The petitioner filed a detailed reply thereto, copy Annexure P.4, pointing out that it was the entire responsibility of Ajmer Singh, Sr. Accounts Clerk, who had prepared the bills and that he had lodged a report with the Senior Superintendent of Police against Ajmer Singh, copy of the letter/report is January 25, 1985-Annexure P.5. On this letter FIR No. 314 of 1985 was registered at Police Station Section 34, Chandigarh. A detailed reply to the charge-sheet Annexure P,6 was submitted, copy Annexure P.6. On April 30, 1990, the petitioner superannuated and retired from service. Copy of the letter is Annexure P.7. Initially no pension was allowed to him, however; subsequently 100% provisional pension was allowed in July 1990-Annexure P.8. The other retiral benefits, however, were not paid, such as leave encashment, gratuity etc. He made representation on August 30, 1991-Annexure P.9. It was suddenly on September 27, 1991 that the petitioner was informed that an Enquiry Officer has been appointed to enquire into the allegations covered by charge-sheet dated December 7, 1984. Copy of this letter is Annexure P.10. No action was taken by the Enquiry Officer for about a year. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court for the relief.

(3.) On notice of motion having been issued, written statements have been filed on behalf of the respondents. Respondents No. 1 and 2 in their written statement broadly admitted the facts as briefly stated above. However, it was asserted that adverse remarks were conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated April 18, 1980-Annexure R. 1 that he had not cleared the arrears of stocks returns and he was advised to improve his working in this respect in future. It was thereafter that the petitioner was placed under suspension. Report of the Accountant General, Punjab, was to the effect of embezzlement/misappropriation to the tune of Rs. 4.50 lacs during the period the petitioner remained on duty as Executive Engineer. The factum of provisional re- in-statement of the petitioner was admitted. The petitioner in connivance with Ajmer Singh, Accounts Clerk, committed financial irregularities. The departmental proceedings against Ajmer Singh were withheld under directions of the Court. Separate departmental proceedings were initiated against Ajmer Singh. However, nothing was mentioned in written statement as to why no action was taken against the petitioner for such long years. FIR was registered against Ajmer Singh under orders of the department. Reference was made to a civil suit filed by Ajmer Singh and on that account departmental proceedings against him were not started. The fact that the petitioner retired on April 30, 1990 was admitted. The fact that provisional pension was granted is also admitted. The representation filed by the petitioner was pending for the grant of other reliefs. The petitioner was subsequently charge-sheeted. After considering his copy submitted to the charge-sheet an Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold enquiry. Replication has been filed by the petitioner who reiterated his stand as taken in the writ petition that the department did not take any action for a number of years against him and after his retirement enquiry cannot be held for his removal from service.