STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. NARINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Narinder Singh plaintiff (respondent herein) filed a suit challenging the validity of order bearing No. 2671/I & C dated 3.7.1984 issued by the Chief Engineer (Central), PWD B&R Branch, Patiala, imposing penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect on him, besides ordering recovery of Rs. 52,533.47 from him. The trial Court declared the order to be illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice and decreed the suit. The defendant-State (appellant herein) filed appeal but that too was dismissed by the Additional District Judge.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the plaintiff was served with a charge-sheet dated 13.9.1973, stating therein that in May, 1971, he had delayed the handing over the charge and also record, for a period of one year and nine months, despite issuance of several letters to him by the authorities. Besides, he did not maintain proper accounts of stock/material, leading to shortage to the tune of Rs. 54,953.04 paise, detailed in Annexures A and B attached with the plaint. He filed reply to the charge-sheet, appending several annexures consisting of 17 pages, in proof of his innocence. On 20.12.1974, Shri B.S. Malhotra was appointed as the Enquiry Officer for holding the enquiry. On the same day the Chief Engineer passed a separate order directing him to make good and loss, and also directed that 50% of the amount of shortage be deducted from his salary. Before any evidence could be recorded, Shri B.S. Malhotra expired, leading to the appointment of a new enquiry officer, Shri J.P. Kohli. No intimation was, however, sent to the plaintiff about the appointment of new enquiry officer. But, before any date of hearing could be fixed in the enquiry, Shri J.P. Kohli, also died, and he was replaced by Shri Satinder Singh, Superintending Engineer, National Highways, vide orders dated 16.2.1979. The latter fixed three dates of hearing viz. 22.12.1979, 21.2.1980 and 28.2.1980 in the enquiry but did not send any communication in this regard to the plaintiff. The enquiry was, ultimately, adjourned to 30.7.1980. The plaintiff protested against the manner in which dates of hearing had been fixed without giving any intimation to him. The enquiry officer felt annoyed and got him suspended. Ultimately, the plaintiff received the impugned order dated 3.7.1984 vide which the punishing authority had stopped his two increments with cumulative effect, besides ordering the recovery of Rs. 52,533.47 from him.

(3.) The defendant-State contested the suit, pleading that the enquiry was held as per the procedure prescribed under the rules and taking up certain legal objections.