J R SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner having joined as a Clerk on 25.4.1960 was ultimately promoted as Deputy Controller (Finance and Accounts) in the Office of the Director Public Relations, Punjab. He retired from service on that post on 30.6.1992. Shortly before his retirement, the petitioner received a charge-sheet on 17th March, 1992 alleging irregularities by the petitioner during the period when he had been posted in the Office of Civil Surgeon, Hoshiarpur as Accounts Officer. It is the petitioner's case that similar charge-sheets had been served upon the Civil Surgeon, Assistant Civil Surgeon, Chief Pharmacist, Accountant and the Clerks, who were working in the said office and 3 separate inquiries were held against the delinquent officials. The first inquiry was held against the Civil Surgeon and Assistant Civil Surgeon and while the latter was fully exonerated, the Civil Surgeon was awarded a punishment of stoppage of two increments vide order dated 21.4.1993 whereas the second inquiry against the Chief Pharmacist, the Accountant and the Clerk had also been completed after the filing of the present petition and they too had been exonerated. The third inquiry was, however, initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation and denied the charges that have been levelled against him. A regular inquiry was thereafter conducted by the Additional Registrar (Administration) Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh. Vide report Annexure P.1 with the petition, the Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner was not at fault and accordingly exonerated him. The inquiry report was thereafter forwarded to the State Government and the Secretary of the Department vide his order dated 27.7.1993 Annexure P.2, agreed with the inquiry report on the first 4 charges that have been levelled against the petitioner, but disagreed with the report qua charge No. 5 and accordingly issued a notice to him to show cause as to why a punishment should not be imposed upon him. The petitioner filed his reply Annexure R.3 to the writ petition giving detailed reasons as to why the report of the Inquiry Officer was liable to be accepted, but the Secretary of the Department vide order dated 7.2.1996 Annexure P.4 with the petition, nevertheless imposed a 10% cut on the pension to be received by the petitioner with effect from 1.7.1992. The petitioner has impugned the order Annexure P.4 in the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the Inquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner of the four charges that had been levelled and charge No. 5 which pertained to the allegation that the verification of the bills had not been made by the petitioner according to Government instructions, was also not proved against the petitioner. In this connection, he has referred to the inquiry report to contend that the overall responsibility with regard to the purchases made by the Department rested with the Civil Surgeon and the other members of the Purchase Committee and the petitioner who was a mere Accounts Officer could not be fastened with what they had done. It is also pointed out that all the other officials who had been charge-sheeted but for the Civil Surgeon had been fully exonerated in the inquiry and even the Civil Surgeon has been given a punishment which was virtually non-existent inasmuch as that the order of punishment had been made on 25th of May, 1993 whereas he had retired on 27th of March, 1993 and as such, the punishment could not be effectively imposed. Mr. Gupta has also pointed out that the order Annexure P.4 had been based on the assumption that the Civil Surgeon who was competent to purchase medicines up to Rs. 20,000 at a time (whereas for a purchase beyond that limit, the sanction of the Director, Health Services was required) had split up the purchases to amounts below Rs. 20,000/- in order to make him competent to make the purchases and the petitioner as an Accounts Officer had been clearly remiss in not objecting to this method of purchase.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and find that the matter needs reconsideration in the light of the facts stated hereinafter.