MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order, dated 3 December 2004 (Annexure P10), vide which he has been dismissed from service of the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation (PUNSUP) (respondent No.2) (Corporation for short).

(2.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a driver in the responden -Corporation on 25 June 1979. During the course of his service a F.I.R. was registered against him on 23 February 1998 under S. 409, Indian Penal Code, alleging that while serving as a driver he had misappropriated 500 Tins of palm oil between the period from June 1985 to January 1986. The petitioner was prosecuted and on successful completion of the prosecution he was convicted by judgment, dated 14 July 1995, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nakodar. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs.2,000. Against the order of conviction, the petitioner filed an appeal which has also been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, by judgment, dated 22 March 2004. The petitioner thereafter filed a criminal revision petition in this Court, which has been admitted on 6 April 2004 qua the sentence only. Sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner has been suspended during the pendency of the revision petition and he is on bail.

(3.) IN the meantime, after registration of the F.I.R. two chargesheets were also issued against the petitioner under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (Rules for short) vide No.Admn.l2(370)86/32479, dated 5 September 1986 and No.Admn.12(370)89/25948, dated 7/12 July 1989. The first charge sheet contained six charges Charges No. (i), (ii) and (iv) related to misappropriation. Charge No. (iii) related to misappropriation of 200 tins of palm oil on 10 June 1985. Charge No.(v) pertained to remaining on unauthorized leave. Charge No.(vi) pertained to the petitioner being challenged for driving the truck without a driving licence. The second charge sheet contained only one charge pertaining to embezzlement of 300 tins of palm oil. In respect of two charge sheets a departmental enquiry was held. The petitioner was found guilty of all the charges in both the charge sheets, except charge No.(ii) of the first charge sheet which was partially proved. He had been charged with embezzlement of 93 litres of diesel by making cutting in the logbook. It was proved that he had embezzled diesel to the extent of 63 litres and not 93 litres. Inspite of the aforesaid findings of the enquiry officers, in the aforesaid charge sheets, the petitioner was not dismissed from service. Rather he was ordered to be reinstated in service by an order, dated 1 February 1996 passed by the respondent - Corporation. By this order, it has been further directed that an amount of Rs.94,393 be recovered from the petitioner, as the value of the oil misappropriated by him and that his two increments be stopped with cumulative effect. After the suspension of sentence of imprisonment by this Court on 6 April 2004 and despite the order of reinstatement, the petitioner was not permitted to join duty. He, therefore, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 14482 of 2004, seeking directions to the respondents to reinstate him in service. The aforesaid writ petition is pending at motion stage for 31 August 2006. The petitioner claims that on notice of motion having been issued in the aforesaid writ petition, the respondents have passed the impugned order, dated 6 April 2004 (Annexure P10), dismissing him from service. The said order of dismissal from service has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.