SATNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order (Annexurc P-8) issued by the Director Public Instructions (School), Punjab, on 19.4.1994 appointing respondent No.6 as Inquiry Officer to investigate into the allegations levelled against the petitioner under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 1970 Rules).

(2.) The petitioner joined service as a Teacher in 1974 on fixed salary of Rs.150/- per month. He is said to have applied for grant of leave from 153.1978 to 15.12.1978 for the purpose of prosecuting the B.Ed course at the Gandhi Memorial College of Education, Srinagar (J&K). According to the petitioner, his leave was sanctioned by the competent authority and he prosecuted the course in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. After his return from leave, the petitioner was not allowed to join his duties and he was informed that his services stood terminated w.e.f. 24.6.1978. This led to the filing of a civil suit by the petitioner, which was decreed by the Sub Judge, Kapurthala , on 7.4.1989. The appeal filed by the Department was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, on 5.9.1991. However, keeping in view the observations made by the learned Appellate Court, the Director, Public Instructions (Schools) issued Memo dated 21.4.1993 for holding an inquiry against the petitioner under the 1970 Rules. Shri PL. Handa was appointed as Inquiry Officer to hold inquiry into the allegation of absence from duty levelled against the petitioner. It is said that Shri Handa made a detailed inquiry and submitted his report to the respondent No.2 with a finding that the petitioner was not guilty of the allegation of absence from duty. However, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned order (Annexure P-8) and appointed the respondent No.6 to investigate into the allegation levelled against the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground of violation of Rule 9 of the 1970 Rules, non- application of mind and arbitrariness. His contention is that the punishing authority is not empowered to appoint a new Inquiry Officer and to direct holding of a de novo inquiry merely because the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are not to its liking. Another contention of the petitioner is that the impugned order does not contain any reason for ignoring the findings recorded by the previous inquiry officer. The respondents have justified the order (Annexure P-8) on the ground that Shri P.L. Handa, who had earlier made inquiry into the allegation levelled against the petitioner, did not refer to the evidence produced before him by the department to prove the allegation of absence from duty levelled against the petitioner and, therefore, the respondent No.2 was constrained to appoint Smt. Gulshan Raj Kaur, Circle Education Officer, Jalandhar, to hold further inquiry.