K K BOGRA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, challenge is to order dated 11.8.89 by which petitioner has been ordered to be compulsorily retired under Rule 5(vii) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970.

(2.) Vide order dated 8/9.9.1987, the petitioner when posted as Sectional Officer (Civil) Municipal Committee, Jaitu, was placed under suspension with immediate effect. On 28.9.1987 a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner. The charges were that the petitioner had remained absent on 8.6.1987, 12.6.1987, and 17.6.1987 and thereafter with effect from 24.6.1987 without any sanctioned leave and further it had been noticed by the then Administrator of Municipal Committee, Jaitu that 34,000 bricks which had been shown to be consumed by the petitioner towards construction of a road had actually not been used. Further a bill was prepared by the petitioner for Rs. 17,430/- for the supply of stone metal but actually no supply was made on the spot. Still further 4000 cubic feet filling of earth work had been got done by the petitioner in the Harijan Basti whereas there was no such provision in the estimate. Petitioner gave a reply to the charge-sheet, denying all the charges. The Director, Local Government appointed Shri S.S. Gill, Deputy Director, Local Government, Ferozepur, as Enquiry Officer. On conclusion of enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted on the basis of which order dated 11.8.1989 retiring the petitioner compulsorily from service was passed. The order is being challenged on the ground that the enquiry is vitiated because the Enquiry Officer did not observe the principles of natural justice and the enquiry so conducted was in flagrant violation of mandatory provisions of the rules and principles of natural justice. It is the allegation of the petitioner that enquiry has been conducted in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice. He has alleged that the enquiry proceedings were concluded in about an hour or so in spite of the fact that the said date was not fixed for defence evidence nor for the statement of the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer though told the petitioner that the next date would be intimated for defence evidence and statement of the petitioner, but no further proceedings took place after 17.5.1988 and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner the enquiry report was submitted. The petitioner has further alleged that statement of one Sham Lal, Work Munshi, was recorded who was neither cited as witness nor summoned as witness by the department. The Enquiry Officer who has been arrayed as respondent No. 4 in his written statement has admitted that enquiry was held in the afternoon of 17.5.1988 as in the forenoon an important meeting of the Executive Officers of Ferozepur Region was held at Kotkapura. He has also admitted that R.K. Singla, Executive Officer, who was also the Presenting Officer in the enquiry was examined as witness and he produced various documents as existed in the record of the Municipal Committee. He has further admitted that Sham Lal, Work Munshi, who was not listed as witness was called for giving evidence as his evidence was very crucial for finding out the discrepancies of stone metal as he has been keeping the record of this material being the Work Munshi. It has been denied that the petitioner was not given any chance to cross-examine R.K. Singla, Executive Officer and Sham Lal, Work Munshi. It has been averred that the petitioner gave his statement in defence in which he stated that his statement dated 21.10.1987 addressed to the Director, Local Government, Punjab, be read as his defence. In this very statement, petitioner closed his evidence. It has been averred that allegation of the petitioner that he was not given adequate opportunity of hearing, is not correct.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the enquiry against the petitioner was only an eye-wash and sheer formality as the Enquiry Officer was pre-determined to conclude the enquiry on 17.5.1988 itself. Counsel also contended that if the record is summoned, it would show that the petitioner was not given opportunity to cross-examine the Store Munshi. Counsel further contended that copies of the relevant/material documents including the report of the Administrator on the basis of which charge-sheet was served on the petitioner, were not supplied to the petitioner. In answer to these submissions, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with rules and procedure and no prejudice whatsoever has been caused to the petitioner by recording the statement of Work Munshi.