Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 617 (PNJ)

S. K. Bhargava v. State Of Haryana

2003-04-30

VINEY MITTAL

body2003
Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner S.K. Bhargava for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated December 16, 1991 whereby he was dismissed from service and the order dated August 7, 1992 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Finance Department. The aforesaid orders have been appended as Annexure P/10 and P/12 respectively with the present petition. 2. While the petitioner was working as Assistant Superintendent-cum-Sales officer of Lottery ticket with the Lotteries Department, Haryana, he was served with a charge sheet on September 7, 1987. In the aforesaid charge-sheet certain charges with regard to non deposit of the sale proceeds of lottery tickets etc. were levelled. A copy of the charge sheet has been appended as Annexure P/11 with the present petition. The petitioner filed a detailed reply and denied and allegations of mis-appropriation levelled against him. A copy of the reply has been appended as Annexure P/2 with the present petition. The petitioner has averred that after the submission of his reply an enquiry was conducted and he was found to be innocent and subsequently he was ordered to be reinstated vide order dated September 28, 1987. Ultimately the petitioner retired on September 30, 1987 on reaching the age of superannuation. 3. After his retirement the petitioner made a request to the respondent-department for the release of his salary with effect from February 1, 1987 and for fixation of his pay etc. and the payment of other retiral benefits. However, his representation was ignored and, therefore, he approached this court through the Civil Writ Petition No. 12512 of 1990. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this court with a direction to complete the inquiry proceedings within a period of three months from the date of the order. 4. The petitioner claims that in spite of the aforesaid directions, the enquiry was not completed within the stipulated period. However the Enquiry Officer submitted the report later on and upon submission of the aforesaid report, respondent No. 2, the Director, Treasuries and Accounts proceeded to issue show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner again submitted a detailed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. However the Enquiry Officer submitted the report later on and upon submission of the aforesaid report, respondent No. 2, the Director, Treasuries and Accounts proceeded to issue show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner again submitted a detailed reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. Since no action was taken even upon the aforesaid reply, the petitioner had to approach this court again through another C.W.P. No. 16996 of 1991. The aforesaid writ petition came to be disposed of vide this court order dated February 12, 1992. A copy of the aforesaid order passed by this court has been appended as Annexure P/9 with the present petition. In the aforesaid petition a short affidavit had been filed by the respondents in which it had been stated that the petitioner had been dismissed from service vide order dated December 16, 1991. Because of the aforesaid dismissal order, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the aforesaid order of dismissal, if he so desired. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner has now approached this court through the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid order of dismissal as well as the order passed in his appeal whereby the appeal has been dismissed. 6. Shri Amit Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner has already retired on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from September 30, 1987, therefore, subsequently, the aforesaid order of dismissal dated December 16, 1991 could not have been passed with retrospective effect. For the aforesaid submission Shri Jain relies upon the provisions of Rule 2.2.(b) of Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") as applicable to the State of Haryana. He further relied upon the cases of Punjab State Electricity Board, v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and Anr., 1992(3) R.S.J. 706 and High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Amrik Singh, 1995(3) R.S.J. 78. The aforesaid submission raised by Shri Jain is not controverted by Shri Girish Agnihotri, the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana. In fact Shri Girish Agnihotri has very fairly conceded that as per the provisions of the aforesaid rule, the dismissal order was itself contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid rule and, therefore, was not sustainable in law. The aforesaid submission raised by Shri Jain is not controverted by Shri Girish Agnihotri, the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana. In fact Shri Girish Agnihotri has very fairly conceded that as per the provisions of the aforesaid rule, the dismissal order was itself contrary to the provisions of the aforesaid rule and, therefore, was not sustainable in law. However, Shri Agnihotri has submitted that the respondent-department was well within its right to take appropriate action against the petitioner for causing loss to the exchequer. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter. In view of the provisions of Rule 2.2.(b) of the Rules and the judgments relied upon by Shri Jain in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Amrit Singh (supra) and Punjab State Electricity Board v. Presiding Officer Labour Court (supra), I allow the present petition and quash the orders Annexures P/10 and P/12. However, a liberty is granted to the respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the petitioner if any loss to the exchequer as alleged by them has been caused. If any such action is proposed to be taken then the petitioner would be first served with a show cause notice and thereafter a speaking order shall be passed, after affording an opportunity of hearing him in the matter. 8. Before parting with the judgment I further direct the respondents to take a final decision with regard to the release of retiral benefits of the petitioner. The final decision in this regard shall be taken by the respondents within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received by them. 9. There shall be no order as to costs.