GURPARKASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short issue raised in the instant petition is whether the impugned order dated 6.4.1989 (P.8) could have been passed inflicting minor penalty of recovery of Rs. 3000/ - against the petitioner despite the fact that charge sheet was issued to him for holding a regular departmental enquiry to inflict a major penalty.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case may first be noticed. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.6.1988 asking him to explain as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him as he failed to take care of the case of one Jeeta Rani, Arts and Crafts (Sewing) Teacher in the Civil Court and was thus found negligent in performing his duty. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice wherein the stand taken by the petitioner was that the suit had been filed, decided and limitation for filing the appeal had already expired when the he took over as District Education Officer (s), Jalandhar on 20.10.1987 and despite his best efforts with the District Attorney to have the ex -parte decision set aside, the matter was not taken up by the District Attorney by saying vide letter dated 25.2.1988 that period of limitation has expired and any move at this stage would be hopelessly time barred (P.2). Despite the reply filed, a charge sheet dated 23.9.1988 (P.3) under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 for major punishment was served upon the petitioner a day before his retirement. The petitioner filed detailed reply within the stipulated period followed by separate communication giving some more details (P.4 and P.5). However, after a lapse of six months, respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated 6.4.1989 penalising the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - as part of the damages caused to the State to the tune of Rs. 10,000/ - on account of the civil suit filed by Jeeta Rani.

(3.) MR . S.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if a charge sheet has been issued then later on minor penalty cannot be imposed without following the procedure prescribed for imposition of minor penalty. He has further submitted that in the instant case there is a complete departure from this principle which vitiates the whole proceedings. In support of his submission, learned Counsel has placed reliance on a judgement of this Court in the case of Ch.Manphool Singh (supra). Learned Counsel has also argued that for a major penalty for which charge sheet had been issued, it was incumbent on the competent authority to order departmental enquiry where the petitioner could have inspected the records, cross -examine the witnesses and brought his version before the Enquiry Officer.