P.K. JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Sectional Officer in the P.W.D (Irrigation Branch) on 4th December, 1964 at Talwara. On the re- organisation of the State, he was transferred on deputation to the Beas Construction Board and joined at the Beas Sutlej Link Project Sunder Nagar on 8th November, 1966. On 4.4.1971, he was posted as Sectional Officer the stores, Sub Division and made Incharge of the Heavy, Machinery Spares Section, Sunder Nagar. He continued to work on this post till 31st April, 1974 under the direct control of the S.D.O., Executive Engineer and the Superintending Engineer (Stores), Sunder Nagar. While posted, the petitioner detected a shortage in the store during the annual checking of the store and conveyed the information to his immediate superior officer Sh. G.C. Bansal. The petitioner also informed the S.D.O. that the shortage had occurred on account of the misconduct of the Work Mistry Varinder Kumar but the S.D.O. advised him to treat the matter as closed. The petitioner nevertheless in order to safeguard his position, wrote a letter Annexure P-1 dated 30.4.1973 to the Executive Engineer enclosing the list of the items that were found to have been missing. This was counter-checked by one Major Singh S.D.O and Sh. Mukand Singh XEN and it was found that the petitioner had made a correct assessment. A copy of the report given by Mr. Mukand Singh, XEN, is appended as Annexure P-3 to the petition. This report was forwarded to the Superintending Engineer, Arbitration who imposed a penalty of 50% on the petitioner as well as the SDO Sh. G.C. Bansal. Thereafter, a charge sheet Annexure P-5 to the petition was served on the petitioner by the authority i.e. the Superintending Engineer and it was pointed out that the shortage amounting to Rs. 28,206/- had been detected. This amount was increased by a subsequent charge sheet Annexure P.6 to the petition to Rs. 31,067/-. The petitioner was also placed under suspension and an FIR also registered. The DSP Sunder Nagar, however, wrote to the Chief Engineer that it was futile to persist with the prosecution as there was no chance of its ending in a conviction. On a consideration of the charge sheet, however, the petitioner was administered a warning vide order dated 12.7.1979 Annexure P.27 to the petition. It appears that the department, thereafter, came to the conclusion that the issuance of simple warning was not sufficient to meet the misconduct attributed to the petitioner and a show cause notice Annexure P-28 dated 7.1.1980 was, accordingly, issued. The petitioner made a reply Annexure P-29 dated 27.3.1980 and pointed out that the petitioner had been exonerated by the police and that a warning had already been administered to him. The Chief Engineer nevertheless vide Annexure P-30 ordered recovery of Rs. 31057.65 from the pay of the petitioner.

(2.) Notice of motion was issued in this case on 3rd August, 1983 and stay of recovery was ordered. The case was, thereafter, adjourned time and again by the State despite service did not put in its reply, with the result that the stay has continued up-to-date.

(3.) It has been pointed out by Mr. Namit Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner that no reply has been filed by the respondents even till now. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that vide Annexure P-28, the matter had been finally settled and as such, any subsequent action imposing recovery was not in order. It has also been pointed out by Mr. Namit Kumar that no incriminating evidence had been found against the petitioner and that it was Varinder Kumar Works Mistry who had been found to be the guilty one and that despite the passage of almost 14 years since the admission of the writ petition, the averments made by the petitioner had remained unrebutted.