M S BAINS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet (Annexure P1) and the order (Annexure P2) relating to appointment of Inquiry Officer for holding inquiry against the petitioner under the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. 1970 readwith Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. II, Part-I. Prayer has also been made for striking down Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol. II, Part-I.

(2.) The petitioner has questioned the charge-sheet (Annexure PI) and the order of appointment of Inquiry Officer solely on the ground of delay. According to him, the chargesheet relates to his working as Superintending Engineer at Bathinda during the year 1972-73 and there is no justification for Issue of a charge-sheet after such a long period or calculated with reference to the year of incident. The petitioner's further plea is that just three days before his retirement on 30.9.1985 from the post of Chief Engineer, the respondent-Government has ordered appointment of an Inquiry Officer vide order Annexure P2 without even considering his reply. The petitioner has attacked Rule 2.2(b) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, VoL II, Part-I on the ground that it is unreasonable and discriminatory. According to the petitioner, Rule 2.2 (b), particularly proviso (1) and (2)(ii) makes arbitratory qualification between Government servants who had not retired and against whom inquiry has been initiated and those who stand retired and in whose cases the inquiry cannot be initiated except in respect of an event which took place within four years of the initiation. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the administrative instructions issued by the Government in support of his plea that the proceedings initiated against him cannot be held by the Government.

(3.) In reply the respondents have pleaded that inquiry was initiated against the petitioner because prima facie it was found that by his acts and omissions the petitioner had caused serious loss to the public revenues. The respondents have denied allegation of inordinate delay in the initiation of inquiry. According to them; a thorough investigation was made before the initiation of inquiry and due to the so-called delay in the initiation of inquiry the petitioner has got advantage of promotion to the next higher posts and, in fact, some of the allegations have been dropped. According to the respondents, Vigilance Inquiry was instituted against the petitioner on 29.11.1973 in respect of 12 allegations. Two of these allegations involved one Shri D.K. Sehgal, the then Chief Engineer, apart from the petitioner and due to the impending retirement of Shri D.K. Sehgal and therefore inquiry was first held tn respect of them. The remaining allegations were enquired into subsequently. The inquiry report was received by the Government on 23.2.1978. This long time was consumed because the matter had to be examined by technical experts and the investigating officers had to visit sites and make inquiries from different sources. After receipt of the report dated 23.2.1978 the Government asked the Director, Vigilance Bureau to supply additional record. Such record could be obtained in the month of March 1980 and thereafter it was examined at different levels and finally the draft charge-sheet was prepared on 8.6.1981. The charge-sheet was ultimately served on the petitioner on 12.8.1981. His reply was received on 28.9.1981 and after the matter was again examined, the Government took a decision to appoint the Inquiry Officer after giving personal hearing to the petitioner on 11.10.1984 and 13.3.1985. The respondents have defended Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol. II, Part-I, by pleading that if is quite reasonable to make distinction between the existing Government servants and the retired Government servants in the matter of initiation of inquiry.