BALDHIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS

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. M.P. Goswami, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the impugned charge sheet is not sustainable in the eyes of law because the same is violative of the statutory provisions of Rule 2.2(b)(2)(ii) of the Rules, which stipulates that no departmental proceedings against an officer could be initiated in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution. Learned Counsel has argued that the Petitioner stood retired from service on 31st December, 2001 and charge sheet has been issued on 13th March, 2007 i.e. after more than five years of his retirement. In order to substantiate his argument, learned Counsel has placed reliance on various Division Bench judgments of this Court rendered in the cases of Puran Chand v. State of Punjab,2002 2 RSJ 85, L.B. Gupta, Chief Engineer v. PSEB,2001 4 RSJ 127, R.C. Gupta v. PSEB, 2002 1 RSJ 509, Gurdev Singh v. State of Punjab,2004 2 RSJ 127, and M.P. Goswami v. State of Punjab (C.W.P. No. 17382 of 2005, deceided on 7th August, 2007, (Annexure P-6).