HARDIAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing of order, Annexure P-1, dated 24th of January, 1994 passed by respondent No. 1 under rule 5(ix) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 dismissing the petitioner from service.

(2.) The petitioner joined service on 19.11.1970 as Sectional Officer in Public Works Department. Later on he was designated as Junior Engineer. While he was posted at Nabha in the year 1979, the petitioner was placed under suspension. A departmental inquiry was held against him. The inquiry was entrusted to Shri B.R. Bansal, Superintending Engineer, Public Health. As a result of the inquiry, order dated 9.10.1987 issued by the Government in the name of the President of India and penalty of stoppage of four grade increments without cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner in addition to punishment of recovery of Rs. 3,32,861.08, for the financial loss caused to the Government. The petitioner did not file any appeal or review against the order of punishment. However, after about two years and two months the Government suo moto reviewed the order dated 9.10.1987 and vide its order dated 25.1.1990, the Government withdrew the order dated 9.10.1987 but without prejudice to a fresh order which could be passed after holding fresh inquiry or serving fresh charge-sheet upon the petitioner. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer, Public Health, Patiala issued a notice dated 21.2.1992 and while furnishing a copy of the inquiry report prepared by Shri B.R. Bansal, the Chief Engineer called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within one month. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 6.5.1992 and pleaded that after withdrawal of the order of punishment, no fresh order could be made. This was followed by the impugned order dated 24.1.1994, whereby the Government imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner.

(3.) When the case was taken up for hearing on 6.12.1995, the Court noted that the petition as well as the reply were wholly laconic because either side did not produce copies of the orders dated 9.10.1987 and 25.1.1990 and further that the copy of the inquiry report and show cause notice served upon the petitioner had also not been produced before the Court. Therefore, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, was directed to produce these orders before the Court. In compliance of this direction, CM No. 15451 of 1995 has been filed alongwith the relevant orders. That CM has been allowed by us today.