HORI LAL Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has prayed for quashing of charge sheet dated 1.2.1996 Annexure A -1 issued under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short Rules), memo dated 23.5.2001 Annexure A -10 whereby the Petitioner was given an opportunity of making representation on the proposed penalty, order dated 3.9.2001 Annexure A -12 imposing penalty of withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect with immediate effect. The connected prayer is for a direction to the Respondents to release his arrears of pay after re -fixing his pay in accordance with law along with interest.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Petitioner is serving as Superintendent Grade -II. The Petitioner was charge sheeted vide memo dated 1.2.1996 under Rule 14 for not preparing the arrears bills of Smt. Nirmal Kanta Lecturer and Vipin Chand Assistant Librarian while working as Senior Assistant, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Paonta Sahib. He was in the habit of going on leave frequently with the prior permission of Head of the Office. The Petitioner denied the charges in his reply. The arrears bills of Smt. Nirmal Kanta, Pritam Singh and Vipin Chand were received in the office of Principal, Govt. Senior Secondary School, Taruwala in the year 1995 and thereafter the same were marked to him. The arrears related to the period for more than two decades. He prepared the bills of Pritam Singh in the month of June, 1995 and Smt. Nirmal Kanta in the end of July, 1995. The arrears bill of Vipin Chand related to the year 1966, the old record was searched by Petitioner but he proceeded on casual leave on 13.10.1995 and thereafter he fell ill and remained under treatment till 25.11.1995. The leave of the Petitioner was sanctioned. He resumed his duties as Superintendent Grade -II on 27.11.1995 after handing over the charge of Senior Assistant to Kartar Singh on 7.12.1995. The Petitioner was not negligent in performing his duties.

(3.) ON 23.5.2001 the Petitioner came to know that Respondent No. 2 is proposing to impose on the Petitioner a penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The Petitioner had filed detailed representation against the proposed penalty but without application of mind Respondent No. 2 imposed the penalty of withholding three annual increments with cumulative effect on the Petitioner vide order dated 3.9.2001. The Petitioner has filed the petition on the grounds that inquiry against the Petitioner is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.