USHA RANI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari with a prayer for quashing charge sheet dated 23.3.1994 (Annexure P -3), the order of punishment stopping one increment of the petitioner with cumulative effect dated 18.4.1995 (Annexure P -7) and the appellate order dated 21.6.1995 (Annexure P -8) upholding the order of punishment. On the basis of inquiry report dated 8.2.1995, conducted at the instance of respondent No. 2, one annual grade increment of the petitioner, who is an employee of respondent No. 2 has been stopped by the order of punishment dated 18.4.1995 (Annexure P -7). The aforementioned punishment has been upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 21.6.1995.

(2.) THE petitioner has been working as a Clerk with respondent No. 2. On 23.3.1994, a charge sheet (Annexure P -3) was served upon her alleging that the petitioner on 18.2.1994 had misbehaved with Shri D.C. Jain, who was working as Deputy Manager (Account) by using humiliating and objectionable words against him. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.2.1994 before issuing the charge -sheet, the explanation of the petitioner sent on 22.2.1994, was considered and found unsatisfactory. One Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal, Assistant Admn. Milk Union, Bathinda was appointed as an Inquiry Officer for holding a regular inquiry into the charge against the petitioner. In his inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer, has recorded a categorical finding that the charge against the petitioner was proved. Shri D.C. Jain, had himself appeared before the Inquiry Officer in support of the charge and deposed about the abuses hurled on him by the petitioner apart from two other witnesses, namely, Avtar Singh (PW -3) and Rajesh Kumar (PW -1). The statements of two witnesses produced by the petitioner, have been discarded on the ground that those statements did not throw any light on the charges levelled in the charge -sheet. The Managing Director agreed with the findings of fact recorded by the Inquiry Officer and a copy of inquiry report along with a show cause notice was sent to the petitioner on 18.2.1995. On 18.4.1995 (Annexure P -7), the Managing Director -respondent No. 3 passed an order, stopping one annual grade increment of the petitioner with cumulative effect. The aforementioned order, on appeal filed by the petitioner, was upheld by the Managing Director on 21.6.1995 (Annexure P -8).

(3.) THE learned Additional District Judge further held that there was no substance in the submission made by the petitioner that Shri Pawan Kumar could not have been appointed as an Inquiry Officer because during the inquiry proceedings, petitioner had never raised any objection with regard to the appointment of Shri Pawan Kumar as Inquiry Officer. The petitioner is found to have fully participated in the inquiry proceedings for more than a year without raising any objection in that regard. It has further been held that no prejudice was shown to have been suffered by the petitioner on account of Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal as Inquiry Officer.