BABU RAM BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer made in this petition is for quashing of order Annexure P-5 imposing the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect passed by respondent No. 2 and order Annexure P-7 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal against the order Annexure P-5.

(2.) Petitioner is working as Gram Sachiv in the office of Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Fatehabad. For the lease of Shamlat land of village Kharkan for 1990-91, an auction was held on 2.5.1990. The auction was presided over by the Social Education and Panchayat Officer, Sirsa in the presence of Sarpanch, Members of the Gram Panchayat of the village, interested parties and the bidders. Petitioner was directed by the Presiding Officer to note down individual bids in the lease register. While recording the bids in the lease register the total of approved final bids exceeded the total of such bids communicated by the Presiding Officer for plots No. 6, 7 and 8. Since there was a discrepancy in the amounts some cutting was made in the lease register to rectify the error. Lease amount was initially mentioned to be Rs. 98,800/- whereas it should have been Rs. 1,04,700/-. Entries were changed from Rs. 98,800/- to Rs. 1,04,700/-. The amount of auction money collected at the spot was handed over to the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat against proper acknowledgement against receipt in Form No. IV. Entry in the proceeding book was also made to confirm the fact that a sum of Rs. 1,04,700/- has been realised at the time of auction and not Rs. 98,800/- as had been indicated by the Social Education and Panchayat Officer, Sirsa.

(3.) Complaints were made that petitioner had changed the figures of the auction money. Action was taken on those complaints and petitioner was placed under suspension on 30.9.1990. Petitioner was served with a memorandum of charges along with charge-sheet issued by the Director, Development and Panchayat, Haryana, under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Inquiry Officer was appointed. Petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice issued to him. Charges levelled were denied by the petitioner. Charge No. 1 which is relevant for the decision of this writ petition is reproduced below :-