DHANI RAM CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is working as an Executive Engineer is aggrieved by the charge-sheet issued to him with memorandum dated March 15 1990. A copy of the charge-sheet along with the memorandum has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. The petitioner prays that this charge-sheet be quashed. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) On June 30 1982 the Executive Engineer Public Health World Bank Division Rohtak allotted the work regarding construction of an Inlet Channel to Mr. Naresh Kumar Dalal a contractor. This work had to be completed by Aug. 30 1982. The work was actually completed after some delay and handed over to the authority concerned in the year 1983. It appears that the then Executive Engineer had deducted an amount of Rs. 18000.00 from the bill submitted by the contractor. An additional amount of Rs. 10000.00 had also been withheld as testing charges. The contractor had challenged this action. The matter was referred for arbitration to Mr. M.N. Sharma who is stated to be an officer of the Department. In Jan. 1984 the petitioner was transferred to the Public Health Division Bahadurgarh. He had consequently to represent the Department before the Arbitrator. He had produced certain records. After consideration of the matter the Arbitrator gave his award on Dec. 27 1984. He awarded an amount of Rs. 28000.00 to the contractor. After a lapse of more than five years the department issued the impugned charge-sheet to the petitioner in which it was alleged that the petitioner ''gave quite misleading/false statement on 5.12.1984 regarding completion of work before the Arbitrator.'' It has been further observed that the petitioner ''should not have based his entire defence on the strength of wrong certificate recorded by his subordinate rather he was required to confirm the completion report as provided under para 2.122 of P.W.D. Code.'' Observing that due to misrepresentation of facts by the petitioner the department had suffered a loss of Rs. 28000.00 he was charged with having violated the provisions of rule 3(1) of Government Employees (Conduct) Rules 1966.

(3.) The petitioner's submission is that he had merely produced the relevant record according to which the Sub Divisional Engineer and the Junior Engineer had certified that the work had been completed as per the departmental specifications. By doing so he had committed no misconduct and that the action of the department in raising this controversy after the long lapse of more than five years was wholly arbitrary and unfair. He has also pointed out that a reply to the charge-sheet had been filed on April 14 1990. The relevant documents had also been produced. Even thereafter the petitioner had made various requests to the respondents. However in spite of the lapse of long time the enquiry proceedings were not concluded. As a result he filed the present writ petition. The petitioner prays that since no charge of misconduct is made out against him the impugned charge-sheet and the proceedings deserve to be quashed.