PARTAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has been dismissed from service,--vide order dated 3rd January, 2008 (Annexure P-24). Earlier,--vide order dated 27th December, 2004, a fresh charge sheet was issued to him under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 by annulling the earlier charge sheet and the inquiry initiated under the police rules. Vide order dated 27th December, 2004 a charge sheet containing the following charges was served upon the petitioner :

(2.) It is alleged that the petitioner proceeded on leave to his home town for 20 days with effect from 28th April, 2004. He overstayed the leave due to sickness and joined on 3rd June, 2004. However, the period of over stay stands sanctioned,--vide order dated 28th July, 2004. It is further stated that the petitioner was summoned to attend the office of Shri R.P. Singh, I.G. (Intelligence) where he was questioned on 23rd June, 2004 and asked whether he has leaked out some information to one accused namely Rajinder Kumar. The petitioner claims that he denied the allegations. The petitioner was, however, placed under suspension,--vide order dated 16th July, 2004 and a departmental inquiry was initiated against him for leaking information to accused Rajinder Kumar as also for absence from duty. One Jagmohan Singh, DSP was appointed as Inquiry Officer and a charge sheet dated 27th July, 2004 was served upon him (Annexure P-8/T). Petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet on 24th August, 2004. He has alleged that during the inquiry signatures of the petitioner were obtained on some papers on 8th September, 2004 and 10th September, 2004 by HC Bakhtawar Singh of JIC, Amritsar. It is further alleged that petitioner knows only Hindi and was not aware as to what was written on those papers. The further allegation of the petitioner is that on 25th September, 2004 when he was asleep, his finger prints/impressions were taken away by somebody which fact came to his notice when he woke up and found ink marks on his both hands. Petitioner has also alleged that his suspension and dismissal have been procured by respondents No. 6 to 9, who apprehended that the petitioner has given information about the activities to respondent No. 5 DIG (Intelligence). It is also alleged that the petitioner's transfer was sought by respondent No. 6,--vide his letter dated 14th June, 2004 addressed to ADGP (Intelligence) Punjab. It is further case of the petitioner that the inquiry was completed by Shri Jagmohan Singh, DSP, CID, Patiala in five months but no action was taken. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application dated 7th December, 2004 for deciding the proceedings against him as nothing incriminating was found against him. The petitioner was, thereafter, reinstated in service,--vide order dated 3rd May, 2005 (Annexure P-11/ A). Before his reinstatement the petitioner had been served with the impugned Memorandum dated 27th December, 2004 proposing to initiate inquiry under the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules.

(3.) The petitioner filed writ petition bearing CWP No. 777 of 2005, challenging the order dated 27th December, 2004. This writ petition was, however, dismissed,--vide order dated 13th Janury, 2005. The second inquiry was conducted by Satpal Singh, PPS, S.P. (Zonal), CID, Patiala. On conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer in his report concluded that the charge of absence from duty is not proved as leave has been duly sanctioned. The Inquiry Officer, however, concluded that charge of misbehaviour against the official is proved. Regarding the third charge of leakage of information, the Inquiry Officer concluded as under:-