KALYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KALYAN Singh Petitioner has called in question in this case under Article 226 of the Constitution, the order of Shri G.S. Sidhu, Chief Engineer (Drainage), Irrigation Works, Punjab, Chandigarh, dated May 21/23, 1964. (Annexure 'F') under Rule 4(h) of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, hereinafter called the disciplinary rules, whereby it was decided to impose upon the Petitioner the penalty of stoppage of his two increments with future effect.

(2.) THE Petitioner who had originally joined service in the Irrigation Department of the Punjab Government as a tracer in 1946, has become a Divisional Head Draftsman by 1953. An adverse entry made against the Petitioner by one Shri I.P.S. Sandhu, Executive Engineer, in June, 1961, was negatived by Shri Jogindera Nath, Superintending Engineer, Sirhind Canal Circle, Ludhiana. On the recommendation of the Superintending Engineer, the Petitioner was promoted in or about November, 1961, as Circle Head Draftsman. On April 17, 1963, one Karnail Singh of Kot Gangu Rai Co -operative Labour and Construction Society Ltd. submitted a written complaint (Annexure R -II) to Shri Kapur Singh, the then Chairman of the Punjab Legislative Council, to the effect that the Petitioner was demanding Rs. 100 as illegal gratification for arranging payment of RS. 1,100 due from the Irrigation Department to the Co -operative Society and praying for arranging an early payment of the same. As per contents of a subsequent letter of Shri Kapur Singh, to which reference is hereinafter made, he forwarded the complaint with his own D.O. letter No. PSC/63/192, dated the 17th April, 1963, to Shri V.P. Goel, Chief Engineer, North, and requested him in the said letter to look into the matter and to fix the responsibility for the alleged non -payment of the dues of the Society. The D.O. letter was addressed to Shri V.P. Goel, Chief Engineer, as he happened to be the Head of the Petitioner's Department at that time. The Chief Engineer got an investigation made (into the allegation against the Petitioner having demanded illegal gratification) through the Superintending Engineer concerned. The Superintending Engineer, after investigation, reported that the complaint against the Petitioner was incorrect and thereupon the Chief Engineer (Shri V.P. Goel) exonerated the Petitioner and filed away the papers in so far as they related to action against the Petitioner. This decision was conveyed to Shri Kapur Singh by Shri R.N. Pandit, Executive Engineer (Central), by his D.O. letter, dated the 10th June, 1963 (referred to in Annexure R -1). A copy of the letter has not been produced, but Sardar Partap Singh, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, has read out the same to me. It is stated in the letter that the payment of the disputed items, as claimed by the Society, had been approved, but so far as the complaint of the alleged corruption against the Petitioner was concerned, the matter had been investigated, and it had been found that nothing could be suspected. On the receipt of the above -mentioned communication from the Executive Engineer, Shri Kapur Singh wrote D.O. letter, dated 1st/3rd July, 1963 (Annexure R -1), to Shri G.S. Sidhu, Chief Engineer (Administration), Irrigation Works, Chandigarh, referring to his earlier D.O. letter to Mr. Goel and to the intimation received by him from Shri R.N. Pandit about the action taken on his said earlier letter, and adding as follows:

(3.) ON the receipt of the 'show -cause' notice, the Petitioner submitted an application, dated March 14, 1964 (Annexure 'C'), expressing his surprise at the contents of the notice and its enclosure and pointing out that neither any charge -sheet was ever given to him nor his explanation obtained, nor any enquiry held into the allegations in the presence of the Petitioner and praying for being supplied with a copy of the complaint against him, copies of the statements of witnesses, who had allegedly appeared against the Petitioner, and a copy of the report which might have been made by the enquiry officer in that connection. An alternative prayer for permission to thoroughly inspect the relevant records and take copies thereof was also made in the application. It was added that in the meantime, the period allowed for submitting his representation may be suitably extended. The Chief Engineer, in reply to the Petitioner's request, conveyed to the Superintending Engineer, Ludhiana, to advise the Petitioner to inspect the relevant records in the Chandigarh office as already stated in the 'show -cause' notice, and to tell the Petitioner that his failure to inspect the records would not constitute a valid ground for delay in submission of his defence. A copy of the said communication of the Chief Engineer, dated April 1, 1964 (Annexure 'D'), was forwarded by the Superintending Engineer to the Petitioner on April 4, 1964. On April 18, 1964, the Petitioner submitted his written representation (Annexure 'E'), wherein he stated that his request for the grant of copies of the complaint, the statements of witnesses and his alleged explanation, and of the report of the enquiry officer had not been acceded to and that he had only been allowed to inspect the noting and letters regarding the checking of estimates and sanction of slush allowance and the statements of witnesses. He then referred to the previous decision made on the complaint wherein he was found to be innocent and expressed his apprehension about the same complaint having been pushed back again "through some political quarter", who might have been wrongly informed by persons interested against the Petitioner. He specifically claimed an opportunity to be heard orally in order to explain the circumstances relating to the complaint. In the representation, he gave detailed reply to the causes of the delay in getting the payment in question sanctioned to the Society named above. He alleged enmity with Shri Baldev Raj Sood on the ground that he had incurred his displeasure in several routine matters during the course of his employment under Mr. Sood and after criticizing their alleged statements and also the improbability of the correctness of their evidence on the ground that if they had seen the Petitioner asking for 'illegal gratification, they would have reported the matter to the superior authorities, he added a complaint to the effect that if the Petitioner had been given an opportunity to cross -examine those witnesses, the Petitioner would have succeeded in bringing out the falsity of their statements. The Petitioner also added in his representation that if he had been shown the statement made by the complainant and if the statement could be made in the presence of the Petitioner and he could be given an opportunity to cross -examine him, he would be able to show successfully that the complainant had been made a tool in the hands of interested parties to engineer false allegations against the Petitioner. A detailed reference was made to the interested person who was alleged to have engineered the complaint and insisted on it. The Petitioner denied the allegations against him and claimed to have been made a prey to an intrigue, and ultimately said that if his written explanation was not deemed to be sufficient, the Petitioner should be allowed to be heard personally.