RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. UHBVNL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petitioner, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief: -

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as ASSA on 19.01.1972 in the then Haryana State Electricity Board (for short "HSEB") now Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short "UHBVN"). The petitioner attained age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.08.2009 from the office of the Sub Urban Division No. 2, UHBVN, Karnal as Sub Divisional Officer. His retiral benefits were not settled. Therefore, he has filed petition before this Court which was numbered as CWP No. 3068 of 2010. During pendency of the said writ petition, charge sheets were filed against the petitioner in a disciplinary proceeding. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to question the charge -sheet if he is aggrieved, thus the aforesaid CWP was disposed of vide orders dated 10.01.2011, 28.01.2011 and 18.11.2011 (Annexure P5, P6 and P9 respectively). The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and thereafter on 20.09.2012 show cause notice was issued seeking petitioner's explanation (Annexure P17). Since there was no interim order against the aforesaid charge memos in this CWP, the disciplinary proceedings namely 10.01.2011 and 28.01.2011 were ended in imposing penalty of recovery. Insofar as dated 18.11.2011 disciplinary proceeding is concerned, the matter is still pending consideration before the authorities. No action has been taken pursuant to show cause notice dated 20.09.2012 vide Annexure P -17 till date, in other words, it is pending consideration. Thus, the petitioner is aggrieved by the afore -mentioned Annexure P5, P6, P9 and P17.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had misappropriated respondents' money to the tune of lacs of rupees which has been narrated in the charge memo/statement of allegations. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the charge memo to set aside. The determination of amount in the statement of allegations was pursuant to office of the Chief Auditor, UHBVN, Panchkula Rohtak and the Chief Accounts Officer/Administration, UHBVN, Panchkula. In view of these facts and circumstances, the charges are not vague as contended by the petitioner's counsel. It was further contended by the respondents' counsel that the petitioner take shelter under Rule 2.2 B of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume II, for the reasons that the allegations stated in the charge memo are relating to 4 years old i.e., prior to petitioner's date of retirement.