R P BALI Vs. B B M B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, Petitioner R.P. Bali, who had been working as a Steno Typist under the Bhakra Beas Management Board, has prayed for tie quashing of the orders dated 30th June, 1986, (Annexure p. 23) 22nd December, 1986 (Annexure p. 25) and 2nd February, 1987 (Annexure p. 27), by which the petitioner has been removed from service and appeals against the order of removal have been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner joined service of the Bhakra Beas Management Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") on 19th May, 1972, as a Clerk and in due course of time was promoted as Steno-Typist Grade I. On that post, he was drawing the monthly salary of Rs. 600/- plus Rs. 25/- as special pay plus usual allowances admissible under the rules. According to the petitioner, he was the General Secretary of the Punjab Irrigation Clerks' Association and Secretary General of Joint Action Committee of all the Trade Unions/Associations functioning at Nangal Township. Being a Trade Unionist, he had been actively participating in the Union activities and fighting for the grievances of the workers with the Board. On 12th December, 1984, the petitioner met with a scooter accident and received grievous head injuries. He was taken to the Canal Hospital maintained by the Board at Nangal-Township where he was admitted in a Private Ward. According to the petitioner, he was then drawing a salary of Rs. 625/- P.M and was a Trade Union leader and, therefore, was entitled to the facility of Private Ward in the hospital which was accordingly provided to him. The petitioner remained in the hospital for about ten days and thereafter on 12th July, 1985, the petitioner was served with notice calling upon him to explain as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him because he had disclosed his monthly salary as Rs. 725/- plus Rs. 25/- instead of Rs. 600/- plus Rs. 25/-, for the purposes of availing the facility of a Private Ward in the hospital.

(3.) The petitioner submitted his reply refuting the allegations and justifying his action but on 18th September, 1986, he was served with a charge-sheet on the aforesaid allegations. In order to give an effective reply to the charge-sheet, the petitioner made a request for the supply of documents but the same was declined on 7th October, 1995. Though the petitioner made another attempt on 21st October, 1985, for obtaining copies of the necessary documents required by him, yet the request was not acceded to. On the other hand, on 30th October, 1985, the petitioner was informed that Shri J.K. Bhalla, Senior Design Engineer of the Board, had been appointed as the Inquiry Officer to go into the charges levelled against him. This appointment of Shri J.K. Bhalla was objected to by the petitioner on 3rd December, 1985, but his request for appointing some other officer in place of Sh. Bhalla was declined on 17th December, 1985. Another request made by the petitioner on 7th June, 1986, for changing the Inquiry Officer on the ground that the petitioner was neither supplied the copies of the documents required by him nor was the Inquiry Officer recording cross-examination of the witnesses faithfully, was also declined. Thereafter, when the Board concluded its evidence before the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner submitted his list of six witnesses for being summoned before the Inquiry Officer, out of which be latter declined to summon as many as four. This was done by the Inquiry Officer on the ground that it was his prerogative to decide as to which was the relevant witness and for which purpose that witness was to be examined. On the conclusion of the inquiry, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 7th April, 1986, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service. The petitioner submitted his reply on 7th May, 1986 but the same did not satisfy the disciplinary authorities. As a result there of, on 30th June, 1986, the petitioner was removed from service of the Board with immediate effect (Annexure p. 23), The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 22nd December, 1986 (Annexure p. 25) and the second appeal was also rejected on 2nd February, 1987 (Annexure p. 27).