SATPAL JINDAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was posted as Sub-Divisional Officer in the Department of Irrigation, Government of Punjab at Ladda Sub Division, District Sangrur. He was responsible for the affairs of the Sub Division under his control. The officer above him in the hierarchy was the Executive Engineer, namely Sohan Lal Sidhu. This officer was in fact regularly posted as Executive Engineer of Mansa Division but was holding additional charge of Sangrur Division. An amount of Rs. 86,02,484/- had been withdrawn from the treasury for making payment to the contractor as also incurring other miscellaneous expenditures. The amount so withdrawn was kept in the chest of the office. This fact was also in the knowledge of the Executive Engineer controlling the Division. Allegedly, the petitioner was not on duty on 31.5.2004, because of some personal problems. It has been further alleged that the Executive Engineer withdrew the money from the chest and filed a complaint against the petitioner with the Vigilance Bureau. Resultantly, an FIR dated June 9, 2004, was registered against the petitioner. He was placed under suspension on June 17, 2004, with effect from 31.5.2004. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had not been paid subsistence allowance for over a year. However, the same has been paid recently. The petitioner surrendered before the Court on 22.12.2004 and on that date he was admitted to bail by the Court. The petitioner was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code for embezzlement of Rs. 96,04,984/-.

(2.) The petitioner was charge-sheeted departmentally on 23.3.2004, and was required to submit the reply to the charges contained therein. It has been alleged that the petitioner requested that the disciplinary proceedings be not proceeded with in view of the matter pending before the criminal Court. The request was rejected vide order dated May 27, 2005, again a representation date June 12, 2005, was made by the petitioner making averments that the simultaneous progress in both the proceedings would cause serious prejudice to his right of defence. However, no relief in this regard has been granted. An Inquiry Officer has been appointed vide order dated July 21, 2005.

(3.) The petitioner has filed the present petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated May 27, 2005, copy Annexure P-5, vide which the request of the petitioner for staying the departmental proceedings has been rejected as also for quashing the charge-sheet dated October 7, 2004, copy Annexure P-3. Further, issuance of a writ of mandamus has been prayed for directing the respondents to debar the enquiry against the petitioner in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in re : Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., 1999 2 SCT 660, a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in re : Sukhjit Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab and others, 2005 1 SCT 50.