MAMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Intra court-appeal has been filed against order of the writ court dated 13.07.2015, dismissing the writ petition, wherein the appellant had sought quashing of order dated 10.02.2014 (Annexure P-1), imposing penalty of recovery of Rs. 2,92,458/- from the retiral benefit payable to him besides imposing lifelong 2% cut in pension under Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-II, as applicable to the State of Haryana. The appellant retired as District Elementary Education Officer on 30.06.2008, whereafter, he was issued a charge sheet (Annexure P-2) on 23.04.2009 on the allegation that he had purchased gas stoves and its accessories from a non-approved source and at a rate higher than the market rate. The Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report dated 23.04.2010 holding that evidence against the appellant was too weak to return a finding of guilt. No action was taken on the said report, but after 2 years and 3 months thereafter i.e on 11.07.2012, respondent No. 1 vide Annexure P/7 dated 11.07.2012, disagreed with the inquiry report (Annexure P-6) along with note of dissent by holding the appellant guilty of the charges levelled in the charge sheet. The writ court dismissed the writ petition by holding that the purchase was not as per guidelines issued by the Director Elementary Education, Haryana, besides purchased items were sub-standard.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that order dated 10.02.2014 (Annexure P-1) was contrary to the evidence led before the Enquiry officer, there was ample documentary evidence on record to show that the Faridabad Central Cooperative Consumers Stores Ltd., Faridabad was an approved source for making purchases, the members of the committee had admitted that they never verified any rate from the market rather they had been merely asked to put their signatures on the already prepared report about the price, respondent No. 1 had relied upon a subsequent inquiry report dated 02.05.2012, which was conducted behind the back of the appellant besides the subsequent inquiry report dated 02.05.2012 was not supplied to the appellant along with note of dissent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the appellant had purchased the gas chullah/bhatti which were neither of ISI Mark nor mere purchased from approved source besides were more expensive than the prevalent market price and in the circumstances the impugned order had been rightly passed.