PARBODH SAGAR Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was working as a Deputy Chief Accounts Officer in the Punjab State Electricity Board, has filed these four petitions to claim promotion to higher posts and to challenge the order dated January 21, 1994 by which the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed on him. Firstly, the sequence of events may be briefly noticed.

(2.) On April 15, 1977, the petitioner joined service as an Accounts Officer. He was sent on deputation to the Bhakra Beas Management Board. In April 1984, Mr. Kushal Dev Sharma, a cashier embezzled an amount of Rs. 58,500/- by making fictitious entries in the cash book. The petitioner, on noticing the error in accounts reported the matter to his superior officer vide letter dated June 1, 1984. A copy of this letter is at Annexure P.1 in CWP. No. 9944 of 1995. On instructions from Mr. P.S. Mangat, the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, the petitioner reported the matter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana vide his letter dated June 20, 1984. A copy of this letter is at Annexure P. 2. The Police registered a case against Mr. Kushal Dev Sharma on July 10, 1984. After investigation, the police presented the case to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana for prosecution of Kushal Dev Sharma on March 14, 1985. While the case was pending in the Court, the petitioner was transferred from the post of Accounts Officer, Jamalpur to that of Accounts Officer, Sundernagar. The petitioner alleges that after his transfer, the case was not properly pursued by his successor and ultimately vide order dated November 10, 1987, the Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana acquitted Mr. Sharma. While doing so, the Court even made certain adverse comments regarding the petitioner. It observed that it could not be believed that ''Shri Parbodh Sagar who was Drawing and Disbursing Officer and who used to check the cash book everyday and also used to sign the certificate at the end of the month could not detect the forged entry in the cash book....It is strange as to why he did not sign those entries and in case he was having any doubt with respect to the said entries why he did not take action at the earliest....The disbursing officer is required to check all the entries in his cash book as soon as possible after the date of their occurrence and to initial the book....''

(3.) The financial rules as referred to above make it clear that the drawing and disbursing officer is fully responsible for all the entries made in the cash book for he signs the same at the end of the month having checked all the entries.'' The Court also observed that the prosecution had failed to examine Mr. P.L. Gulati and Mr. D.R. Saini, the persons to whom the money was alleged to have been given. These witnesses could have explained the correct position and it could have been found out as to whether or not the accused had made fraudulent entries for issue of temporary advances. The case had been registered against the accused on the allegation that he had made fictitious entries in the names of these two persons in the cash book. These witnesses have not been examined and the record from the office of the SSE Sangrur and SSE, Jalandhar having not been produced, it could not be ascertained as to whether or not the entries were false. The Court also observed that there was an inordinate delay of three months in the registration of the case. The prosecution ''had thus failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. The accused is therefore acquitted of the charge against him.....''