Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1355 (PNJ)

S. P. Verma v. State Of Haryana

2002-12-04

MEHTAB S.GILL

body2002
Judgment Mehtab S.Gill, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated March 21, 1995 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Chief Engineer (Operation). Zone No. 1. Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula, district Ambala (respondent No. 2). Further, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated August 23, 1995 (Annexure P-7/I and P-7/II) passed by the Additional Secretary/Secretary. Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula respectively. 2. The petitioner has averred that he joined as T. Mate on work charge basis in the department of Punjab State Electricity Board in the year 1959. His services were regularised w.e.f. September 18, 1960. He was promoted as Assistant Lineman. He was further promoted to the post of Lineman on August 18, 1965. On re-organisation of the State of Punjab, the petitioner was transferred to the State of Haryana. It has been further averred that he worked efficiently and satisfactorily. No adverse remarks were ever given against the petitioner nor were conveyed to him, but to the utter surprise of the petitioner, he was removed from service on March 21, 1995, 3. The petitioner has averred that many persons had applied for tubewell/domestic connections to the Sub Divisional Officer, Haryana Slate Electricity Board, Pundri. A complaint was made against the petitioner when he helped one Shri Chhajju Ram son of Bhola Ram, Ex-serviceman of village Pundri district Kaithal for giving him electricity connection out of turn. The petitioner got erected 5 poles and conductors. He, thus, misappropriated the Boards material with mala fide intention to give electricity connection to Shri Chhajju Ram out of turn. First Information Report was filed against the petitioner in the year 1994 in Police Station Pundri under Sections 420/120-B/379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 39 of the Essential Commodities Act and 13/49/88 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was arrested and placed under suspension, 4. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on May 17, 1994 (Annexure P-1) and departmental enquiry was ordered. The Executive Engineer (Works)-cum-Enquiry Officer, Operations Circle, Haryana State Electricity Board, Ambala submitted its report dated February 20, 1995 (Annexure P-2). Show Cause Notice dated March 2, 1995 (Annexure P-3) was issued to the petitioner. Reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner on March 15, 1999 (Annexure P-4). The Executive Engineer (Works)-cum-Enquiry Officer, Operations Circle, Haryana State Electricity Board, Ambala submitted its report dated February 20, 1995 (Annexure P-2). Show Cause Notice dated March 2, 1995 (Annexure P-3) was issued to the petitioner. Reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner on March 15, 1999 (Annexure P-4). Respondent No. 2 removed the petitioner from service vide order dated March 21, 1995 (Annexure P-5). 5. Notice of motion was issued. 6. Written statement was filed. 7. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated March, 21, 1995 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 2 before respondent No. 1 on March 24, 1995. The appeal of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated August 9, 1995 (Annexure P-7/1). Learned counsel drew my attention to the order of removal from service dated March 21, 1995 (Annexure P-5) and no-where it was mentioned that there was any mis-utilisation of the government property. All that the petitioner has done is that he obeyed the verbal order of his superiors to provide electricity connection to Shri Chhajju Ram. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in the cases of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., A.I.R. 1996 Supreme Court 484; Virenderanath v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1996 Supreme Court 490; U.P. State Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and Ors., 2000(2) Service Cases Today 314; S.K. Giri v. Home Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors., 1995(5) S.L.R. 220 and Kartar Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab, 1992(1) Services Law Reporter 415. These authorities, as referred to above, are fully applicablc to the facts of the case in hand. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the petitioner has concealed the material facts that the charge-sheet was issued to him and an enquiry was conducted about the release of 31 unauthorised tubewell connections. A report in this regard was submitted on February 9, 1995 (Annexure R-3), He has further stated that the petitioner has intentionally not produced this enquiry report, The First Information Repoit was registered against the petitioner and a criminal case was pending when the petitioner died on August 2, 1999. The said criminal case, thus, got abated. 11. A report in this regard was submitted on February 9, 1995 (Annexure R-3), He has further stated that the petitioner has intentionally not produced this enquiry report, The First Information Repoit was registered against the petitioner and a criminal case was pending when the petitioner died on August 2, 1999. The said criminal case, thus, got abated. 11. In the criminal case which was pending against the petitioner, having abated, the trial court could not come to the final conclusion as to whether the petitioner was guilty or not. In the dismissal order dated March 21, 1995 (Annexure P-5), the only charge levelled against the petitioner is for issuing 5 poles and conductors for the purpose of releasing the electricity connection. There is no mention of the other charges. When the tubewell connections were being released, the petitioner had issued these poles and conductors. The only conclusion which one can draws is that the petitioner was obeying the orders of his- superiors with the verbal authorisation from the superiors, these goods were got out of the store of the Haryana State Electricity Board, Pundri. The petitioner served the department for more than 36 years and the charge-sheet was issued only when he was about to retire on March 31, 1995. It seems that the petitioner was removed from service without any application of mind. A very severe punishment of removal from service was given to the petitioner. 12. With the above observations, impugned orders dated March 21, 1995 (Annexure P-5) and dated August 23, 1995 (Annexures P-7/I and P-7/II) are quashed. Respondents are directed to pay retiral benefits to the legal heirs of the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of passing of this order. As the petitioner has died, his legal heirs are entitled to get his retiral benefits. No interest shall be awarded. 13. This petition is disposed of in the matter indicated above.