CHET RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was appointed as P.E.T. on 1.10.1971. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 23.8.1984, vide Annexure A-1. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on the basis of complaint received from one Sh. Adarsh Kumar in the year 1983 to the extent that that the petitioner while seeking appointment as P.E.T. in Education Department has shown his date of birth as 15.8.1946, but on the verification from the concerned school record, it transpired that the date of birth of the petitioner was 5.2.1943. Inquiry was held. The petitioner was dismissed on 8.4.1986, vide Annexure A-2. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal dated 8.4.1986. The same was rejected by the appellate authority on 2.7.1986. Petitioner preferred O.A. No. 29 of 1986 in the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. It was allowed by the Tribunal on 12.1.1996. Respondent-State went in appeal against the judgment dated 12.1.1996. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal, however, the Supreme Court permitted the State to proceed against the petitioner from the stage of inquiry and conclude the same in accordance with law. Thereafter, one Sh. V.K. Mehrotra was appointed as Inquiry Officer. He submitted the report on 9.8.1997. According to the inquiry report, the date of birth of the petitioner was 4.2.1943 and it was changed to 15.8.1946. Petitioner was served with office memorandum dated 12.12.1997. According to the memorandum, the Disciplinary Authority has provisionally come to conclusion that the penalty of dismissal from Government service be imposed upon the petitioner. The copy of the inquiry report was annexed with the memorandum. He was granted 15 days time to make a representation against the penalty proposed. Petitioner made a detailed representation on 25.12.1997. The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the petitioner on 7.10.1999. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 27.4.2000. Vide Annexure A-11 dated 23.8.1999, the petitioner was ordered to be deemed under suspension with effect from 8.4.1986 to 18.3.1996.

(2.) Ms. Ranjana Parmar has vehemently argued that the petitioner has not been served with a copy of the inquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority. According to her, the copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner after the Disciplinary Authority had made up its mind to impose major penalty upon the petitioner. She also argued that the inquiry is based on conjectures and surmises. She also argued that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 7.10.1999 is neither speaking nor detailed. She also argued that the Appellate Authority has not taken into consideration the averments contained in the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal dated 7.10.1999. She finally contended that the F.I.R. was also registered against the petitioner bearing No. 6/1986 for offences punishable under sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was acquitted by the trial court on 21.11.1992. State preferred a revision petition against the judgment dated 21.11.1992. The same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla on 17.9.1996. State preferred a revision petition in this Court bearing No. Cr. M.P.(M) No. 881/1998. The same was dismissed by this Court on 13.11.1998.

(3.) Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the inquiry has been instituted and held against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. He then argued that non-supply of the inquiry report has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. He further argued that as far as criminal case is concerned, the charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and so far as the disciplinary proceedings are concerned, the same can be proved within the ambit of preponderance of probabilities.