CHHAJJU RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been working on the post of Chowkidar in the department of Women and Child Development , Haryana. When he was posted in the office of Child Development Project Officer, Hissar II, a charge sheet was issued to him alleging that he comes to office by consuming liquor and he indulged in using filthy language and misbehaves with the staff. A list of allegations and imputation of charges was issued to him on 14.5.2003 alongwith list of witnesses. Reply of the petitioner to the charge sheet was filed on 28.6.2003 which was found to be unsatisfactory and there after Programme Officer, District ICDS Cell Hissar was appointed as Enquiry Officer. THE Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 6.8.2004 ( Annexure P.2). According to the Enquiry Officer the petitioner is in the habit of coming to the office by consuming liquor and earlier also he was charge sheeted under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (for brevity 'the Rules') on the allegation of coming to duty by using liquor as well as for remaining absent from duty. At that time punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed on him. He had remained in police custody while working in the office of CDPO, Hansi (I) and a fine of Rs. 25/- was imposed. It was found that he has mis-behaved with the staff in the office on 11.12.2002 and the charges were held to be proved against him. THE Punishing Authority i.e. the Director, Women and Child Development, Haryana, issued him a show cause notice after agreeing with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. After considering his reply, the Punishing authority imposed the punishment of removal from service which was not to be considered as disqualification for future employment under the Government vide order dated 19.1.2005 ( Annexure P.4). Against the afore-mentioned order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Rule 9 of the Rules before the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Department of Women and Child Development (Annexure P.5). THE Financial Commissioner took a lenient view on account of the fact that the petitioner is a handicapped and ex-serviceman and that he had promised to reform himself and accordingly modified the order of removal from service to that of reduction to the minimum of pay scale till retirement ( Annexure P.6). We have heard the learned Counsel at some length and find that there is no legal flaw in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, respondent No. 1. By taking into consideration the factum that the petitioner is handicapped and an ex-serviceman the punishment of removal from service has been converted into that of reduction to the minimum of the pay scale till retirement. An enquiry has been held in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules which prescribes a detailed procedure incorporating various provisions of principles of natural justice and ensuring fair trial. Learned Counsel has not been able to point out any lapse in the holding of enquiry.

(2.) THE only argument raised by him is that the finding with regard to consumption of liquor is vitiated on the ground that the statement of the petitioner has been considered to be an admission which cannot constitute basis of finding that he is a habitual drunkard. It has further been submitted that the quantum of punishment is dis-proportionate to the charge of misconduct. However, we find that apart from the statement of the petitioner before the Enquiry Officer accepting his habit of consuming liquor occasionally there are numerous other statements supporting the charge against the petitioner that he comes to the office after consuming liquor. His past record also speaks of the same mis-conduct. It is well settled that this Court is not to sit over the findings of the Enquiry Officer as a Court of appeal and by re-appreciating evidence to record its own finding. In that regard, reliance may be placed on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chakravarti v. Union of India . It is equally well settled that if there is some lapse committed by the Enquiry Officer, which is so material so as to affect the interest of the delinquent official prejudicially then the question of reducing the quantum of punishment could also be considered. But we find that there is no such lapse. THErefore, the quantum of punishment as awarded by the appellate authority in its order dated 6.5.2005 ( Annexure P.6) cannot be reviewed and set aside. For the reasons afore-mentioned this petition fails and the same is dismissed.