MANJU SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the instant petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution is for quashing order dated 10.2.2006 (P-11) and appellate order dated 10.5.2006 (P-13). The aforementioned orders have been passed by the authorities of the Development and Panchayat Department, punishing the petitioner, who has been working as a Steno-typist, by lowering her pay scale to the minimum for a period of four years on account of misconduct of misappropriating/tampering of record. The appeal filed by her to the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, has been dismissed by the later order dated 10.5.2006 (P-13).

(2.) The petitioner has been working on the post of Steno-typist in the office of the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Pundri (Respondent No. 3). She was placed under suspension by the Joint Secretary of the Department (Respondent No. 2). She was, reinstated in service on 31.5.2005 subject to the result of the inquiry. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued to her on 4.6.2002 (P-2). She replied the charge sheet (P-3). On 12.12.2005, the petitioner was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer (P-10). However respondent No. 2, who is the punishing authority, disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and awarded her punishment of reduction to the minimum of the pay scale, vide order dated 10.2.2006 (P-11). The punishing authority found that the charges of embezzlement of Rs. 46,133.20 stood proved when the petitioner was given the additional charge to work as Accountant. She had even deposited Rs. 30,000.00 in three installments in the account of the Panchayat Samiti. The aforementioned conclusion was reached after issuing show cause notice on 27.2.2004 by respondent No. 2 calling for her explanation with regard to the disagreement of the punishing authority (respondent No. 2) with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. However, no explanation having been submitted, the order was passed by respondent No. 2. The order of the punishing authority was challenged in appeal and the appellate authority (respondent No. 1) has also dismissed the appeal.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, we are of the view that no procedural irregularity or illegality of violation of any of the rules concerning such inquiry, namely, Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, has been pointed out. The finding of the punishing authority showing disagreement with the report of the Enquiry Officer cannot be considered to lack evidence. There is ample evidence on record that an amount of Rs. 46,133.20 was embezzled. The aforementioned fact was found to be proved on the basis of Audit Report to which reference has been made by the Enquiry Officer himself. It was further reinforced by the fact hat the petitioner had deposited Rs. 30,000.00 in three equal instalments of Rs. 10,000.00 although it was claimed that she was forced to deposit the aforementioned amount. It is well settled that the findings recorded in the departmental enquiry could be challenged on the ground that the findings are bald and there is no evidence on record to sustain such findings. In judicial review of decision making process of the departmental authorities, this Court cannot set aside the findings on the basis of inadequacy of evidence as it would amount to re-appreciating the evidence to substitute the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer by the one to be recorded by the Court. In that regard, reliance could be placed on a judgment of Honourable of Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India, (1995)6 SCC 749 : [1995(5) SLR 778 (SC)]. Moreover, we find that the petitioner was given full opportunity by the punishing authority while issuing a show-cause notice dated 27.2.2004 calling upon her to tender her explanation with regard to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer disagreeing with the Enquiry Officer. No violation of the procedure as contemplated in the 1987 Rules has been pointed out.