MOHINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Mohinder Singh who was appointed as Chargeman Special (Euclid Operation by the Superintending Engineer, Mechanical Circle, Nangal on 23rd October, 1962 challenges the order of his dismissal (Annexure I) made by the Superintending Engineer, Administration and Accounts Circle, Sundernagar on 10th November, 1965 and the subsequent order of the Chief Engineer, Beas Sutluj Link Project, dated 6th January, 1966 (Annexure M), in appeal. While the petitioner was working as Chargeman Special, the Executive Engineer of Baggi Tunnel Excavation Division and Concreting (Tunnel) Divn. Sundernagar found that as Bossman in the third shift he had misdirected shovel operator, thus causing delay in the completion of the drain by two shifts. Accordingly, he directed that the petitioner should not act as Bossman in future and in his stead Jagdip Singh Chargeman (Miscellaneous) should work. The petitioner refused to obey the se orders with the result that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. On 24th May, 1965 he was charge-sheeted by the Sub-Divisional Officer Baggi Tunnel Excavation and Concreting Sub-Division for wilful insubordination, disobedience and non-compliance with the orders. The petitioner objected to the appointment of the Sub-Divisional Officer as Enquiry Officer complaining of victimization. Accordingly, on 29th June, 1965, the departmental enquiry against him was entrusted to Shri S.K. Gupta, Executive Engineer, Field Mechanical Division, Mandi. The Enquiry Officer found the charge established against him and after giving the necessary show-cause notice, the petitioner was dismissed by the Superintending Engineer Administration and Accounts Circle, Sundernagar, by his order, dated 10th November, 1965 (Copy of which is annexure I to the petition). The petitioner preferred an appeal against this order to the Chief Engineer, Beas Sutlej Link Project, wherein besides complaining that he had been victimised because of the fact that he was the President of the Beas Sutlej Link Project Union, he pleaded that the enquiry conducted against him was illegal and in violation of the rules of natural justice inter alia on the ground that the witnesses summoned by him in his defence were not examined.

(2.) It appears that the petitioner's plea that his evidence had been shut out by the Enquiry Officer without sufficient cause received the attention of the appellate authority. Accordingly the Executive Engineer (Administration) acting on behalf of the Superintending Engineer Beas Sutlej Link Administration and Accounts Circle, addressed a letter (marked L) to the General Secretary, Labour Union, on 6th December, 1965, in connection with the recording of the evidence of his witness Sukh Ram. The statement of Sukh Ram was however, recorded on 12th December, 1965, but the counsel for the respondents has not chosen to disclose, despite being asked to do so. Whether it was recorded by the Chief Engineer or some subordinate authority. Later, the petitioner was informed of the dismissal of his appeal vide letter of the Chief Engineer (BSL) (marked M), which reproduced in extenso, reads thus :-

(3.) In the course of these proceedings, no other order of the Chief Engineer dismissing the petitioner's appeal was produced by the counsel for the respondents, and he has not even asserted that any detailed order dealing with the petitioner's appeal exists.