RAM SINGH GAUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner retired as a Headmaster on February 28, 1984. On that very day the Director of School Education, Haryana, passed an order holding him responsible for the embezzlement of government money amounting to Rs. 86,425.50 paise and ordered the recovery of Rs. 43,212.75 paise and Rs. 123.15 paise from him. The petitioner filed an appeal. It was kept pending for a very long time. Ultimately, in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court, the appeal was decided by the Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Department of Education vide order dated April 30, 1991. The appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the two orders, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. The primary grievance made by the petitioner is that a charge-sheet under rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, having been issued to him and he having denied the charges, the impugned order could not have been passed except after completing the proceedings of enquiry etc. in accordance with the procedure laid down in rule 7. Additionally, the petitioner submits that even at the stage of submission of reply to the charge-sheet, the relevant documents were not shown and that the authorities passed the impugned orders without the grant of a due and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been averred that no enquiry was required to be held as only a minor penalty has been imposed and that the petitioner had been afforded a due and reasonable opportunity before the passing of the impugned orders.

(3.) A perusal of the order dated February 28,1984 shows that the petitioner had admittedly submitted his reply to the Charge-sheet under rule 7 vide letter dated January 25,1984. He had categorically averred that the relevant documents had not been shown and that he would file a detailed statement after the receipt of copies or inspection thereof. He had prayed that the copies of the relevant documents and twenty-three forged hills may be given to him for inspection so as to enable him to submit a reply. The Director of School Education noticed the petitioner's request that he would submit a detailed reply to the charge-sheet "after inspection of relevant documents/ record." However, he proceeded to observe that "more than a month has passed but no further reply has been received from him." He did not find that the documents had either been shown to the petitioner or that they were irrelevant. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal. The petitioner interalia made a three-fold grievance. Firstly he alleged that the copies of the documents were not supplied. Inspite of the written request, the D.E.O. Sonepat had not given him a chance to inspect the documents and that no intimation regarding personal hearing had been given to him. The appellate authority has not considered as to whether or not the pleas raised by the petitioner were correct.