M S MANN Vs. PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, LUDHIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while posted as Sub Divisional Engineer (Maintenance) in the respondent-University Ludhiana was suspended vide order dated 18.8.1994, copy Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. Charge-sheet, copy Annexure P-2 with the writ petition, was served upon him for certain omissions committed by him. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet, copy Annexure P-3 with the Writ Petition. The Vice-Chancellor constituted a Committee to look into the charges levelled against the petitioner, vide order dated 1.3.1995, Copy Annexure P-4 with the writ petition. The petitioner had been making representations for revocation of his suspension on the ground that a period of more than six months had elapsed but the enquiry had not been finalised. The petitioner has sought revocation of his suspension on the ground that in the letter dated 11.11.1987, the Vice Chancellor has ordered that no employee should be kept under suspension beyond a period of three months and the entire process of enquiry, if any, be completed within the stipulated period. The petitioner, by order dated 21.12.1995, copy Annexure P-8 with the writ petition, was informed that a copy of the charge-sheet and the reply submitted by him were sent to the Committee. The enquiry report alongwith comments of the Estate Officer were submitted to the Vice-Chancellor who had accepted the findings of the Enquiry Committee in respect of the petitioner and the punishment of stoppage of three increments was ordered. The petitioner was also called upon to show cause why the penalty of stoppage of three increments be not inflicted upon him. The petitioner filed reply pleading innocence. The petitioner also requested for the supply of Enquiry Report. However, vide communication dated 11.1.1996, copy Annexure P-10 with the writ petition, the petitioner was informed that the copy of Enquiry Report could not be supplied to him. The petitioner also gave reply to the Show Cause Notice on 17.1.1996, copy Annexure P-11 with the Writ Petition, with a plea that the report of the Enquiry Committee has not been supplied to him and as such he has been deprived of an opportunity to defend himself against the specific charges/lapses attributed to him in the report which has vitiated the proceedings. However, by an order dated 15.2.1996, copy Annexure P-12 with the Writ Petition, the proposed punishment of stoppage of three increments of the petitioner was confirmed and the petitioner was reinstated with an order that his suspension period was not to be treated as 'duty' and that the subsistence allowance of the petitioner was increased from 50% to 75% with effect from 18.8.1995.

(2.) The petitioner, in the Writ Petition, has prayed for quashing the order dated 15.2.1996, copy Annexure P-12 with the Writ Petition directing the respondents to pay him subsistence allowance from August 1995 till 15.2.1996. Challenge to the said order is on the ground that major punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect without supplying copy of report of Enquiry Committee is violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner has further averred that some other employees were also charge-sheeted but they were not suspended and have been let off and no penalty has been imposed upon them.

(3.) This Court, on April 16, 1996 had issued notice of motion to the respondents and in response thereof, they filed joint written statement.