Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 608 (PNJ)

Surinder Kumar Malik v. Chandigarh Administration

2003-04-29

V.M.JAIN, VINEY MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the na ture of Certiorari for quashing the order dated July 11, 2.000 passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh whereby a penalty of with-holding five increments with Cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. A further prayer has been made to quash the order dated February 15, 2001 passed by the Finance Secretary- cum-Secretary Local Self Government, Chandigarh Administration respondent No. 4 and also the order dated July 18, 2001 passed by the Advisor to the Administrator, LIT, Chandigarh. The aforesaid orders have been appended as Annexure P.11, P. 12 and P.13 respectively with the present petition. 2. On October 19, 1995, the petitioner was working as Superintendent Grade II with Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. He has averred that in the aforesaid capacity, he was required to deal with the cases of effecting the recovery of instalments which were pending since many years; On March 9, 1998, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet by the Commissioner. In the aforesaid charge sheet, the petitioner was charged that he had not calculated the annual equated amount of instalments including interest of commercial sites as per the prescribed formula and if, the aforesaid lapse has not been detected in time, the same would have caused a loss of Rs. 88,15,911/- to the Corporation. Subsequently, an Enquiry Officer for conducting the enquiry under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 was appointed. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry ad submitted his report dated December 14, 1999 holding the petitioner guilty. The Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation agreed with the enquiry report and imposed a major penalty of withholding five annual increments with cumulative effect. A copy of the punishment order passed by the Commissioner dated July 11, 2000 has been appended as Annexure P.11 with the petition. 3. The petitioner felt aggrieved and filed an appeal against the punishment order before the Finance Secretary, respondent No. 4. The aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated February 15, 2001. The aforesaid appellate order passed by respondent No. 4 has been appended as Annexure P.12 with the petition. Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Advisor to the Administrator. The aforesaid appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated February 15, 2001. The aforesaid appellate order passed by respondent No. 4 has been appended as Annexure P.12 with the petition. Still not satisfied, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Advisor to the Administrator. The aforesaid revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Advisor and a communication in this regard was sent to the petitioner on July 18, 2001. A copy of the aforesaid communication has: been appended as Annexure P. 13 with the petition. 4. The petitioner has now approached this Court challenging the af6resaid orders Annexure P. 11, P. 12 and P. 13 on various grounds. 5. Upon notice of the writ petition, the respondents have put in appearance. A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3. The claim of the peti tioner has been contested. The punishment order and the subsequent appellate and revisional orders have also been defended. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 7. it is, inter alia, submitted by Shri S.D. Sharma; the learned senior counsel appear ing for the petitioner that the order Annexure P. 13 whereby the revision filed by the pe titioner was dismissed, was not a speaking order and did not contain, any reason. It was further maintained by Shri Sharma that the various pleas were raised by the petitioner challenging the punishment order but none of the aforesaid pleas have been adverted to by the revisional authority. 8. On a specific query put to Shri R.N. Raina, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it has been conceded that besides the order Annexure P. 13, there is no separate detailed order passed by the Advisor to the Administrator, Chandigarh while disposing of the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 9. In these circumstances, we find that the challenge of the petitioner qua the order Annexure P.13 being not a speaking order and, therefore, being hit by the principles of natural justice deserves to succeed. 10. 9. In these circumstances, we find that the challenge of the petitioner qua the order Annexure P.13 being not a speaking order and, therefore, being hit by the principles of natural justice deserves to succeed. 10. Accordingly, without adverting to the other pleas raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner we dispose of the present, writ petition with a direction to the Advisor to the Administrator, UT, Chandigarh to re-decide the revision petition filed by the peti tioner. While deciding the matter afresh, the revisional authority shall deal with the vari ous pleas raised by the petitioner in his revision petition and pass a speaking order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is received by the respondents. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the order Annexure P.13 is quashed with a direction to the Advisor to the Administrator, UT, Chandigarh to re-decide the revision petition as aforesaid. 11. The present writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.