BALDHIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to the charge sheet dated 13th March, 2007 (P -3) and order dated 30th July, 2007 (P -5), appointing an enquiry officer to hold enquiry under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 read with Rule 2.2(b) of the Civil Services Rules, Volume -II, against the Petitioner.

(2.) SHRI Baldhir Singh, Petitioner in the instant petition retired from service as Excise and Taxation Officer, Ludhiana -I, with effect from 31st December, 2001 (P -l). Admittedly, on that date no departmental/vigilance enquiry etc.. was pending against him. After more than five years of his retirement, the Financial Commissioner (Taxation) and Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Excise and Taxation -Respondent No. 1, has issued a charge sheet to him on 13th March, 2007 (P -3) with the allegation that the Petitioner had issued a Registration Certificate dated 11th November, 2001 in favour of M/s Shiv Shakti Wool Traders, Ludhiana, without verifying as to whether the said dealer was actually doing any business at the given premises. It has further been alleged that due to the negligence of the Petitioner, the State has suffered a loss of Rs. 64,89,931 on account of non -depositing of tax, excluding the element of penalty to be imposed under the provisions of the P.G.S.T. Act, 1948. Denying the allegations and referring to Rule 2.2(b)(2)(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume -II (for brevity, 'the Rules'), the Petitioner filed his reply on 13th June, 2007 taking the plea that no inquiry could have been initiated against him for an alleged act which pertains to more than four years of his retirement (P -4). The Respondents instead of dropping the charge sheet; appointed an Enquiry Officer, vide order dated 30th July, 2007 (P -5). The aforementioned charge sheet and order datetd 30th July, 2007 are subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.

(3.) MR . P.C. Goel, learned State counsel on the other hand has submitted that the action of the Respondents is justified because due to the negligence of the Petitioner, State Government has suffered huge loss to public exchequer. He has further argued that in response to the charge sheet the Petitioner has already filed his reply and Enquiry Officer has been appointed. Learned State counsel has insisted that the inquiry is at an advance stage and it would not be proper to quash the inquiry at this juncture merely on the technical ground envisaged by Rule 2.2(b)(2)(ii) of the Rules. Therefore, no cause of action has arisen for the Petitioner to file the instant petition, which is liable to be dismissed.