LAXMI DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of impugned order dated 18.09.2014 (Annexure P-10), passed by respondent No.2, wherein, a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect has inflicted upon the petitioner.

(2.) It is contended that the petitioner joined the Punjab Education Department as Lecturer in the year 1989. She was promoted as Principal in PES-II, School and Inspection Cadre w.e.f. July, 2001. Respondent No.5 was due to be considered for next promotion in the year 2008. The ACRs of respondent No.5 were recorded by the petitioner, being Principal, below average for the years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07, on account of her poor conduct and for being a habitual absentee. On account of her unsatisfactory ACRs, respondent No.5 was not found eligible to be promoted to the next higher post. As a counter-blast, respondent No.5 lodged a false complaint against the petitioner with respondent No.2 alleging that her ACRs had been subsequently changed. In the inquiry conducted by the Circle Education Officer, Circle Jalandhar, the allegations levelled against the petitioner were found to be false vide inquiry report dated 05.06.2010. Respondent No.5 again made a complaint to the Education Minister, Punjab and again an inquiry was marked to Sh. Darshan Singh Dhaliwal, Deputy Director (S.E.) and the petitioner was pressurized the petitioner for changing the ACRs favourably to which the petitioner did not succumb. Consequently, the petitioner was issued charge-sheet dated 30.03.2011 alleging deficiencies in writing the ACRs. The petitioner filed a detailed response to the charge-sheet. Respondent No.6 was appointed as inquiry officer to inquire into the charges and to submit its report. Vide inquiry report dated 27.05.2012 (Annexure P-2), charge nos. 1, 4 and 5 were held to be partially proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, show-cause notice dated 03.07.2012 (Annexure P-3) was issued to the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 19.07.2012 (Annexure P-4). Respondent No.2 proposed punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect but before passing the order, vide letter dated 15.01.2013 (Annexure P-5), he sought concurrence of the Secretary, Punjab Public Service Commission. However, the Secretary, PPSC, vide letter dated 09.05.2013 (Annexure P-6), did not agree with the imposition of the penalty so proposed and desired that further inquiry be got conducted to reach the truth. However, instead of conducting further inquiry, respondent No.2vide letter dated 04.06.2013 (Annexure P-7) again submitted its observation to the Secretary, PPSC, for imposition of penalty. The PPSC, in turn, again reconsidered the observation and the inquiry report and vide letter dated 30.01.2014 (Annexure P-8) informed respondent No.2 that the Commission still feels that the penalty proposed to be inflicted upon the petitioner is disproportionate. However, without paying any heed to the advice of the PPSC, respondent No.2 put up the case before the Council of Ministers proposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, which was accepted and ultimately, impugned order (Annexure P-10), was passed.

(3.) Learned counsel contended that the inquiry report dated 27.05.2012 (Annexure P-2) is vitiated inasmuch as the Inquiry Officer himself called for the witnesses which were never cited by any of the parties. This fact shows that the inquiry has been conducted in an unfair and biased manner and that the authorities were bent upon to prove the charges against the petitioner. This fact is further proved from the fact that the recommendations of the PPSC were blatantly ignored. Even otherwise, charge Nos. 1, 4 and 5 have been held to be proved partially only to the extent of not following the rules and regulations.