TIRATH RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as Clerk in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha. A complaint dated 26.7.2005 (Annexure P-3) came to be lodged by the Secretary to the Speaker, Punjab Vidhan Sabha, namely, Navtej Singh making certain allegations. Based upon the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 27.7.2005 and a departmental enquiry came to be initiated by service of charge-sheet vide letter dated 5.12.2005. As many as four charges were framed by the department. He was asked to submit his reply. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 22.12.2005 to the charge-sheet. On consideration of the reply, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 20.3.2006 (Annexure P-7) appointed Sh. Madan Mohan, Additional Secretary, Vidhan Sabha as Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner, under Sub Rule (2) of Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970. During the course of the enquiry, the petitioner vide his application dated 27.3.2006 (Annexure P-8) asked for certain documents which was followed by another letter for the same purpose. The Enquiry Officer summoned the petitioner and recorded his statement. Thereafter, he completed the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report dated 27.4.2006 (Annexure P-11) to the disciplinary authority. A copy of the enquiry report was also furnished to the petitioner. Response of the petitioner to the enquiry report was solicited. The Enquiry Officer reported that out of the four charges, three charges are proved. On consideration of the reply of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 19.5.2006 (Annexure P-14) imposed the penalty of removal from service and the petitioner has also been disqualified for future employment. The petitioner has accordingly filed this petition challenging the charge-sheet dated 8.12.2005 (Annexure P-5), the Enquiry Report dated 27.4.2006 (Annexure P-11) and the order imposing punishment dated 19.5.2006 (Annexure P-14) primarily on account of violation of principles of natural justice. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer recorded the evidence in absence of the petitioner and he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses nor he was provided any opportunity to lead his own evidence. Keeping in view the nature of allegations and the fact that the enquiry report placed on record did not reveal anything about the cross-examination and about any opportunity granted to the petitioner to lead evidence, vide order dated 16.3.2009, this Court called for the record of enquiry. Ms. Charu Tuli has produced the entire enquiry proceedings today. I have carefully gone through the record. There are certain communications addressed to the petitioner for appearance before the Enquiry Officer. Some of the communications have been duly received by the petitioner whereas regarding some other communications, there is no record of service. However, from the enquiry report, it appears that the petitioner did appear before the Enquiry Officer on 17.4.2006 and his statement was recorded. The Enquiry Officer recorded the statement of one Navtej Singh, Secretary to the Speaker on 19.4.2006 and also the statements of other witnesses. There is nothing on record to indicate that the statements of the witnesses were recorded in presence of the petitioner. In any case, no opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses was afforded to the petitioner. There is also no material on record to show that the petitioner was afforded any opportunity to lead his own evidence in rebuttal. There is another glaring illegality visible from the record that the Enquiry Officer did not maintain any record of the proceedings of the enquiry conducted on various dates. It is sufficient to vitiate the enquiry for want of proper sanctity. Since the enquiry report itself is vitiated on account of non-observance of principle of natural justice, the consequential order of imposition of punishment is also liable to be set aside. Although the enquiry report and the consequential order are liable to be set aside, but there is absolutely no ground in the writ petition to challenge the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to make out any ground for challenge to the charge-sheet.

(2.) In the totality of the circumstances, this petition is partly allowed. Challenge to the charge-sheet dated 8.12.2005 (Annexure P-5) is rejected. However, the Enquiry Report dated 27.4.2006 (Annexure P-11) and the order imposing punishment dated 19.5.2006 (Annexure P-14) are hereby quashed. The respondents are, however, allowed liberty to hold a fresh enquiry in accordance with law by observing principles of natural justice, if so desired. If the respondents intend to conduct a fresh enquiry, the process must be started within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the competent authority. Otherwise respondents shall not be entitled to continue with the enquiry.