D L CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is challenging the impugned orders Exs. 22, 25 and 26 imposing upon him the punishment of stoppage of one grade increment for one year with cumulative effect, which order also contains a direction that the petitioner be not posted on the site of construction and be not paid the salary during the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance which had been paid to him during the period of suspension.

(2.) THE petitioner who had initially joined as Junior Engineer in the Rajasthan Housing Board (hereinafter called the Board') in April, 1971, was promoted the post of Assistant Engineer on 29.12.1973 and was further promoted to the post of Resident Engineer (Executive Engineer) on 28.3.1989. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 14.6.1991 for a contemplated enquiry against the petitioner relating to the house collapse/damaged in Sector 17, Extension Chopasani Road Scheme, Jodhpur. He was charge -sheeted vide letter dated 28.6.1991 issued by the Housing Commissioner. The enquiry was to be held under Regulation 11 of the Rajasthan Housing Board Employees (Disciplinary Action and Appeal) Regulations. 1976 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Regulations of 1976'). The petitioner was charge -sheeted on the alleged allegation of failure to check the quality of the masonary work and failure to ensure proper curing of masonary work done. Copy of the charge -sheet is attached as Ex. 2 with the petition. The petitioner had denied the allegations and asked for copies of certain documents vide his preliminary reply Ex. 3 and ultimately he had filed a detailed reply on 16.9.1991 vide Ex. 4. One Shri C.B.L. Mathur a retired Chief Engineer was appointed as Enquiring Authority and the Deputy Housing Commissioner, Jodhpur Circle, Jodhpur was nominated as the Presenting Officer on behalf of the prosecution. The petitioner alleges that vide Ex. 7 dated 21.10.1991 a programme was made to fix the time for inspection of the site on 30.10.1991. It was decided that the Enquiring Authority alongwith the Presenting Officer and the petitioner would visit the place of damaged buildings. It was also decided that the contractor and the other staff who were responsible for getting the building constructed were to be present on the site. However, the programme could not mature on the date fixed. It is stated by the petitioner that because of certain contingencies the prosecution could not start the enquiry and the enquiry was being postponed. The petitioner has drawn the attention to the letter Ex. 13 wherein it was so mentioned. The petitioner has been asking for early decision of the enquiry and ultimately the Enquiry Officer had taken a decision to finalise the enquiry at the earliest possible and for that purpose the Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 21.1.1992 had directed the Presenting Officer to produce certain documents which were relevant for the purpose of the enquiry i.e. three sets of photographs of damaged building, three sets of blue print copy of plans of the structure collapsed, complete and upto date accounts of the payments to the contractors, all relevant file and record of the work. and quality control, last results of the work being done by the contractors. The petitioner submits that because of the demise of the earlier Enquiry Officer Shri Mathur, another Enquiry Officer Shri B.G. Sharma was appointed as Enquiry Officer vide order dated 20.3.1992 but still vide another order dated 21.4.1992 Shri B.G. Sharma was replaced by Shri S.K. Mukherjee, Retired Chief Engineer, P.W.D. B and R vide Ex. 17. According to the petitioner the prosecution did not produce any evidence whatsoever but had only produced one or two files for perusal of the Enquiry Officer and thus because of the reason that no evidence was led before the Enquiry Officer, the charges against the petitioner could not be proved. The petitioner had submitted that even before his taking over the charge, 75% masonary work had already been completed. He had stated that the work had since commenced from May, 1990 and the petitioner was not the incharge of the building at that time. Ultimately the Enquiry Officer had given a finding whereby the petitioner had been totally exonerated. The petitioner submits that despite the fact that he had been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer a show -cause notice dated 1.2.1993 was issued to the petitioner vide Ex. 19 whereby the competent authority had stated that he was not In agreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and therefore the punishment of stoppage of one increment for one year with cumulative effect was proposed.

(3.) THE petitioner submits that the order of punishment dated 23.2.1993 passed by the respondents remained inoperative and could not be implemented for the reason that the petitioner had already retired from service on 30.11.1993 and his increment was due on 1.12.1993 after his retirement. The petitioner had already earned his last increment in December, 1992 and before falling due of the next increment in December, 1993 the petitioner had already superannuated. Therefore, the order of punishment of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect was an order which could not be implemented at all.