DAYANAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 10.9.2004 (Annexure P-6) awarding the punishment of censure and restricting the suspension period to the extent allowances already paid and further to quash order dated 17.9.2005 (Annexure P-8) dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while working as Accountant in the Haryana Roadways, Rohtak, was suspended vide order dated 14.5.2001. He was charge-sheeted on 28.11.2002 under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal)Rules, 1987 (Annexure P-1). He submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 10.3.2003 (Annexure P-2). Considering his reply unsatisfactory enquiry officer was appointed. The petitioner was served show cause notice (Annexure P-3) on 6.5.2004 who submitted his reply (Annexure P-5) to the show cause notice on 18.52004. Enquiry officer gave his enquiry report (Annexure P-4) holding the petitioner to be partly responsible for negligence in performing his duties.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the allegation of connivance of petitioner with Shri Krishan Lal Khurana was not proved at all because the punishing authority has itself observed that it is correct that he was not responsible for custody of the cash in any manner because the same was supposed to be with DDO and Assistant Cashier and that the cash balance used to be physically checked only once i.e. at the end of each month. It is argued that the petitioner was not found to be a participant or an accomplice in the commission of fraud. The only basis for charge- sheeting him is that had he been a little more vocal in expressing his views, he could have prevented the loss. Only on the basis of this observation the enquiry officer found him responsible for negligence in performing his duties, which is not justifiable.