AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On June 5, 1989, the Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab directed that the petitioners' pay shall be reduced to the minimum of the scale. The appeal and the memorial submitted by the petitioners having been rejected, they have approached this court through the present writ petition. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioners had joined service in the year 1974 as Sub Inspectors. On December 18, 1985, the petitioners alongwith two other persons were placed under suspension. A charge sheet was issued. It was inter alia alleged that 285 bags had been wrongly removed. Out of these, 25 bags of wheat were actually mis-appropriated. The remaining 260 bags were found lying in Jyoti Rice Mill under paddy bags. These had been placed there with the intention to misappropriate. Wrong entries had been made in the record. The charges were enquired into. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on August 17, 1988. He held that out of the total of five, four charges were proved against Mr. Prabh Dayal Gabha. The two petitioners were exonerated by him. The disciplinary authority, however, disagreed with the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. It considered the matter and ordered that Mr. Gabha shall be dismissed from service. Mr. Sukhpal Singh (he is not the petitioner) was ordered to be reduced in rank. So far as the petitioners are concerned, it was observed that "both Sub Inspectors have also acted in careless and irresponsible manner and in their case, they ae reduced to basic pay of Sub Inspectors permanently and (shall be) eligible for drawal of increment one year after passing of the order." The petitioners filed an appeal to the Government. It was dismissed. Even the memorial submitted by the petitioners was rejected vide order dated December 24, 1996. Consequently, the petitioners have approached this court through the present writ petition. The petitioners pray that the orders dated June 5, 1989, March 4, 1993 and December 24, 1996, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P.2, P.4 and P.9 with the writ petition, be set aside.

(3.) We have heard counsel for the petitioners. Firstly, it has been submitted that the disciplinary authority had acted illegally in passing the order of punishment without affording any opportunity to the petitioners. Secondly, the counsel submitted that the impugned orders were discriminatory inasmuch as the Government had set aside the order of punishment passed in the case of Sukhpal Singh but had refused to do so in the petitioners' case.