LAWS(P&H)-2008-4-1

AMAR SINGH Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY

Decided On April 08, 2008
AMAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPEMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in the present writ petition is to the charge sheet dated January 4, 2007, annexure P-11 and charge sheet dated december 5, 2003, Annexure P-6, served upon the petitioner for his acts of misconduct during his service with the respondent-Haryana Urban development Authority (hereafter referred to as the 'huda' ).

(2.) THE primary challenge of the petitioner ] to the issuance or charge sheets is that such charge sheets have been issued after gross delay and in fact, one of the charge sheet, Annexure p-6 has been issued after more than 12 years without any explanation and, therefore, the respondents cannot be permitted to continue with the same and to deny the financial benefits payable to the petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation.

(3.) IT is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he was suspended on January 18,1992, but was reinstated in service on July 21, 1992 subject to pending enquiry. The first charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on december 5, 2003 in respect of the allegations that thepetitioner marked the attendance of four chowkidars with ulterior motive and vested interest in violation of the official procedure and discipline. The Enquiry Officer was appointed on January 30, 2004. Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on August 31, 2006. Thereafter, another charge sheet dated January 4, 2007, Annexure P-ll, was served upon the petitioner and the statement of allegations includes non appearance of the petitioner as witness in a Court case titled as rattan Lal v. State of Haryana, on August 30, 2001. The other allegation against the petitioner is that the sale of the old houses was conducted by the Estate Officer, HUDA after getting approval from the competent authority, but the allotment letter was signed by the petitioner under his own signatures, though the same was required to be signed by the Estate Officer. Thus, the petitioner has misused his official power with ulterior motive and vested interest for self gain.