PARAMJIT WALIA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks quashing of the order/resolution dated 31.1.2006 (Annexure P9) in terms of which the Municipal Council, Gobindgarh (respondent -2) (Municipal Council -for short) has ordered the holding of a de novo departmental inquiry against him. The petitioner also seeks the quashing of the order dated 7.6.2004 (Annexure P1) passed by the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council suspending him from service. A further prayer has been made seeking directions to pay the petitioner subsistence allowance @ 75% after the expiry of period of 6 months from the date of suspension i.e. from 7.6.2004 and to pay him the arrears at the above rates along with interest @ 18% per annum.

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Municipal Council (rcspondenl -2) vide order dated 21.5.1980. Thereafter, he was promoted as Senior Clerk and vide order dated 23.10.1996, he was still further promoted as Junior Assistant. During the period of his service, the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council vide order dated 7.6.2004 (Annexure P1) placed him under suspension. In the order placing him under suspension, it is recorded that on checking done by the President of the Municipal Council (respondent -3), the petitioner was found absent from duty and thereafter he entered into an altercation with him. In a meeting of the Municipal Council, the order passed by the Executive Officer on 7.6.2004 (Annexure P1) placing the petitioner under suspension was confirmed vide resolution No. 122 dated 17.8.2004 (Annexure P2). The petitioner for the misconduct alleged against him including that of entering into an altercation with the President of the Municipal Council was charge -sheeted on 6.9.2004 (Annexure P4). He submitted his reply (Annexure P5) denying the charges. The Municipal Council vide resolution dated 19.11.2004 (Annexure P6) decided to get an inquiry conducted against the petitioner from Shri Sunil Kumar Khosla, Municipal Engineer who was appointed as the Inquiry Officer vide order dated 7.1.2005 (Annexure P7). In terms of the said order, Shri Satish Kumar, Accountant was appointed as the Presenting Officer. An inquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer in his report dated 14.10.2005 (Annexure P8), which was submitted to the Municipal Council, concluded that Charge No. 2 with regard to absence from duty on 7.6.2004 was held to be proved. However, Charge No. 3 regarding misbehaviour with the President of the Municipal Council was held to be not proved. Charge No. 4 to the effect that the petitioner had avoided receiving the order of suspension dated 7.6.2004 (Annexure P1) was found to be proved. Charge No. 5 regarding his disinterest in the work while he was posted in the House Tax Branch from 20.4.2006 to 7.6.2006 was held to be not proved.

(3.) ON notice of motion, separate replies have been filed by the respondents.