SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance which is being raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that vide order dated 31.03 2016 (Annexure P-9), he has been imposed with punishment of recovery of the financial loss caused by him to the Gram Panchayat, Bamiyal to be done from his pensionary benefits and further his suspension period from 19.11.2012 to 29.04.2013 has been ordered to be treated as leave of a kind due, though petitioner has been exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings.

(2.) The facts which have been mentioned in the writ petition are that while the petitioner was working as a Gram Sewak, he was suspended from service vide order dated 16.11.2012 (Annexure P-2). Alongwith the order of suspension, a charge-sheet was served upon him with the allegations of causing loss to the Gram Panchayat. Petitioner filed his reply dated 14.02.2013 (Annexure P-3) to the said charge-sheet and denied all the allegations leveled against him. During the pendency of the enquiry proceedings, petitioner was reinstated on 30.04.2013 without prejudice to the enquiry which was being conducted against him.

(3.) A regular enquiry was conducted against the petitioner in respect of the allegations of causing loss to the Gram Panchayat and the Enquiry Officer i.e. Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Pathankot, who conducted the enquiry, found the petitioner innocent as none of the charge alleged against the petitioner was proved. This report of the Enquiry Officer dated 13.09.2013 has been appended as Annexure P-5 with the writ petition. The Punishing Authority being dissatisfied with the enquiry report, but without informing the petitioner that the Punishing Authority is not accepting the enquiry report, called the petitioner for personal hearing and after affording personal hearing, an order of punishment was passed on 31.03.2016 by which, the financial loss, which was caused to the Gram Panchayat, Bamiyal, was ordered to be recovered from the pensionary benefits of the petitioner, who had already retired by the said date. Further, the suspension period of the petitioner was ordered to be treated as a leave of kind due. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the said order on the ground that the disagreement note of the Punishing Authority, disagreeing with the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer, was never supplied to the petitioner at any stage before imposing the punishment and, therefore, the punishment is bad in the eyes of law as rules of natural justice have been violated.