SANTOKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 03.08.1999 (Annexure P-8), through which he was inflicted upon the punishment of dismissal from service; order dated 10.05.2000 (Annexure P- 10), through which his appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority; order dated 02.04.2002 (Annexure P-13), vide which the petitioner's revision petition was dismissed and order dated 16.01.2004 (Annexure P- 15), dismissing the petitioner's second revision petition. The petitioner further prays that consequent upon the quashing of the above referred impugned orders, the petitioner be ordered to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts, which can be culled out from the arguments raised at the bar and which have emerged from the perusal of the record are that while the petitioner was serving the respondent Budhlada Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., District Ropar (hereinafter referred to as the Mill) as Assistant Cane Development Officer, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 04.05.1995 on the allegations of embezzlement and misappropriation. The petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet, having been found to be unsatisfactory, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to go into the veracity of charges levelled against him. In the departmental inquiry which ensued, vide Inquiry Report dated 30.01.1998 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner was found guilty of embezzlement and misappropriation. A Show Cause Notice, along with a copy of the Inquiry Report, was served upon the petitioner, to which he submitted a reply, on consideration of which, the impugned order dismissing the petitioner from service was passed. The petitioner filed an appeal against the punishment order, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The revision petition filed by the petitioner met the same fate. After the dismissal of the revision petition, the petitioner filed another revision petition, which was also dismissed. It is thereafter that the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for the reliefs referred above.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, have also gone through the record of the case. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner was on the basis of certain bills, which remained unproved as no witnesses were examined during the course of the inquiry, who would prove them. It was submitted that once no witnesses were examined, the petitioner did not get the opportunity to cross-examine them. According to learned senior counsel, this was a major procedural flaw in the inquiry proceedings and enough to set at naught the entire disciplinary proceedings held against the petitioner, the impugned dismissal order, the appellate order and the orders passed in first and second revision petitions. In support of his arguments, a judgment of this Court in the case of K. C. Arora vs. State of Haryana and others, 1996 4 RSJ 695 was cited. It was further argued that the Inquiry Report was based on surmises and conjunctures and that no charge against the petitioner stood proved.