MANORMA JOSHI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While the petitioner was posted as Principal, Government College, Hoshiarpur, she was issued a memorandum of charges, under the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, on 19.9.2003. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply thereto, denying the allegations levelled against her. Finding the reply filed by the petitioner as unsatisfactory, the authorities chose to hold a regular departmental enquiry against the petitioner. For the aforesaid purpose, Mr. S.L. Jain, Deputy Director, from the office of the DPI (Colleges), Punjab, was appointed as the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer allegedly recorded the statements of the witnesses on behalf of the department, on 19.5.2004 and 20.5.2004. It is also the case of the petitioner, that she was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the CWP No. 9990 of 2005 Page numbers department, before the enquiry officer. Consequent upon the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of two of the charges levelled against her, in his report dated 1.6.2004 (Annexure P-19). Consequent upon the determination at the hands of the enquiry officer, the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, by an order dated 15.4.2005 (Annexure P-24). Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the procedure adopted by the authorities in holding the departmental enquiry against her, as also, the eventual order of punishment passed against her, on 15.4.2005.

(2.) The petitioner, inter-alia, has impugned the departmental proceedings conducted against her, by raising two primary contentions, firstly, that the enquiry proceedings were conducted against her, by an officer who was junior to her. And secondly by asserting, that the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the department, during the course of the enquiry proceedings. The final order dated 15.4.2005 has been impugned by asserting, that the same is a non-speaking order, which does not take into consideration any of the pleas raised by the petitioner, against the findings recorded by the enquiry officer.

(3.) We have examined the record produced before us, including the record of the enquiry proceedings. The same reveals, that the statements of the witnesses were recorded on 20.5.2004. The record produced before us, does not indicate, that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses produced on behalf of the department.