BACHITAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Should the enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioners in these three cases after the lapse of more than 20 years be allowed to continue ? This is the short question that arises for consideration in these three writ petitions. Counsel for the parties have referred to the facts as appearing in CWP No. 12564 of 1997. These may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The petitioner is working as a Junionr Engineer in the Public Works Department, Irrigation Branch. During the year 1971-72, he was posted in the Drainage and Mechanical Sub Division No. 3, Amritsar. In June 1995, he was served with a memorandum dated May 29, 1995. He was informed that enquiry proceedings have been initiated against him under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970. It was alleged that the petitioner had made purchases "in dribblets rather than in one lot... The make and trade mark of some of the items of the material purchased has not been mentioned in the local purchase papers...You did not purchase the stock in accordance with the reserve stock limit approved by the Competent Authority...." On this basis, it was alleged that a loss of Rs. 41,342.79 had been caused by making excess expenditure. The petitioner alleges that these purchases had been made during the period from March 1971 to march 1972. There is no justification for the respondents to have initiated the proceedings after the lapse of an inordinately long delay of more than 20 years. Consequently, the petitioner prays that the enquiry proceedings as also the charge-sheet be quashed.

(3.) This petition was listed for hearing on December 1, 1997. No written statement had been filed. No one had appeared. By an ex parte order, the writ petition was allowed. Subsequently, an application was filed with a prayer that the order be recalled. Even the written statement was placed on record. Notice of that application was given. By an order of date, we have recalled the order passed by the Bench on December 1, 1997. We have perused the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents to explain the delay. It has been averred that one Jaswant Singh had filed a complaint to the Director, State Vigilance Bureau, Punjab. An enquiry was registered on the basis of the said complaint. A report was forwarded to the Secretary, Vigilance Department vide letter dated August 22, 1989. The time was spent in correspondence. The Chief Engineer was finally requested to prepare the charge-sheet vide memorandum dated June 11, 1993. After making effort, the Chief Engineer was able to find out the relevant records. On the availability of the record, the competent authority decided to issue the charge-sheet. These charge-sheets were served on the officials vide memorandum dated May 29. 1995. It has been further averred that the charges being of serious nature, this court should not interfere with the action taken by the respondents.