GURMEL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Is the action of the respondents in ordering the recovery of Rs. 1,71,916/- from the petitioner in conformity with law ? This is the short question that arises in this case.

(2.) The petitioner who has since retired from service was working as a Sub Divisional Engineer in the Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads). He was served with a memorandum dated October 27, 1988. He was informed that it was proposed to take action against him under the provisions of rule 10 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. A detailed charge sheet along with the statement of charges and allegations, list of witnesses and documents etc. was served on the petitioner. On receipt of this memorandum, the petitioner submitted his reply vide letter dated November 11, 1988. A copy of this reply has been produced as Annexure P-2 with the writ petition. Thereafter, the petitioner was conveyed the order dated May 4, 1992. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P-4 with the writ petition. In this order, after noticing the allegations, it has been mentioned that the petitioner had submitted his reply on which comments were sought from the Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and the Chief Engineer. After examination, the Government had found that Shri Gurmel Singh, Sub Divisional Engineer (Retd.) is prima facie responsible for the loss to the tune of Rs. 1,71,916/-. The details of the loss were mentioned and the penalty for the recovery of this loss was imposed. The petitioner alleges that the order is illegal and prays that it be quashed.

(3.) The claim made by the petitioner has been controverted by the respondents.