K B RAI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing of order Annexure P1 dated 14.3.1995 whereby respondent imposed a penalty of censure on the petitioner.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are that while holding the post of Superintending Engineer the petitioner was served with memorandum Annexure P4 dated 18.7.1991 for holding an enquiry against him order Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). This memorandum was accompanied by a statement of charges, statement of allegations, list of witnesses and list of documents. The petitioner sought copy of the fact finding report dated 6.5.1991, copies of the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of preliminary enquiry and a copy of the complaint. A copy of the preliminary report was made available to the petitioner but not the annexures. He ethereafter submitted a reply and controverted the allegations levelled against him. The enquiry was conducted by the Joint Secretary, Food and Supplies Department, Punjab in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner and one Shri. B.R. Bhatia (Executive Engineer). During the course of enquiry, the petitioner made an application for assistance by an Advocate on the ground that the Department was being represented by a legally trained person. The request of the petitioner for being provided with the assistance of a lawyer was rejected and he was told that he can get assistance of a government servant. The enquiry officer submitted his report Annexure P15 dated 5.3.1993 and held that the allegation of committing financial irregularities by splitting of work orders is proved against the petitioner. The petitioner was given a copy of the enquiry report and he filed a detailed representation running into about 28 pages. Thereafter, the impugned order of punishment came to be passed by the Government. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground of violation of procedure prescribed by the Rules and the principles of natural justice.

(3.) The respondent has supported the impugned order by pleading that the petitioner was afforded full opportunity of defence and after thoroughly considering the evidence recorded by the enquiry officer, the Government has found him guilty of committing financial irregularities by splitting of work order and ordering purchase of consumable articles far in excess of requirement and, therefore, the punishment of censure awarded to him is quite just and proper.