J.S. SANGHERA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to framing of charge-sheet Annexure P/5 dated February 4, 1992. The petitioner, J.S. Sanghera, Superintending Engineer, joined service in 1961. From time to time he was duly promoted and finally in May, 1988, he was promoted as Superintending Engineer. In September, 1988, there were unprecedented heavy rains and floods, resulting in loss of human lives, cattle and crops. In Ferozepur circle, there was damage to the embankments of the canal to the extent of 500 kilometers length. The petitioner was to undertake the repair work of the Ferozepur canal circle. In the newspaper of September, 1989, there were news of false allegations of irregularities committed in the construction work aforesaid. Vigilance Wing of the Irrigation Branch and the Chief Engineer (Vigilance) held separate preliminary enquiries. The petitioner was also associated. However, nothing against the petitioner was brought out in the inquiry. On the basis of the inquiry report, charge-sheets were served upon 4 Executive Engineers, 10 Sub- Divisional Officers and 50 Junior Engineers. Though no charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner, yet he was conveyed certain remarks vide letter dated December 5, 1989, which were incorporated in his annual confidential report. Annexure P/1 contains such remarks. Annexure P/2 was also served upon the petitioner, which is dated January 12, 1990, calling upon his explanation. Vide order dated May 18, 1990, the petitioner was ordered to be retired premature under Rule 3(1) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975. Copy of the order is Annexure P/4. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in Civil Writ Petition No. 10333 of 1990, which was allowed on April 30, 1991. Thus, the petitioner was reinstated and joined as Director, R.S.D.D., Chandigarh, on August 22,1991. It was on February 4, 1992, that a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner about the irregularities committed during 1977-79, while using the sand which was not upto the mark for construction. Specifically the charge-sheet is related to the following two matters:

(2.) On notice of motion having been issued, written statement has been filed on behalf of the official respondent, inter-alia, admitting the broad facts, however, explaining delay in framing the charge-sheet. Annexure R/1contains a calendar of events explaining the delay. The petitioner submitted replication. Inter-alia, asserting his stand as taken in the petition.

(3.) The matter has already been considered by the Full Bench in Jagir Singh vs. State of Punjab,1993 1 SLR 1 (Punjab & Haryana). After referring to the entire case law, it was observed as under:-