Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 939 (PNJ)

Subhash Chander v. State of Haryana

2013-07-26

M.M.S.BEDI

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. M.M.S. Bedi, J. (Oral):- This is an application for preponing the date of hearing. 2. Misc. Application is allowed. The date of hearing is pre-poned from August 30, 2013 to today i.e. July 26, 2013. The matter is taken up for hearing by preponing the date. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the order dated August 20, 2011 (P-6) issued by respondent No.4 i.e. the Managing Committee of Bhagwan Parshuram College. The second relief sought for by the petitioner is that the charge-sheet dated August 26, 2011 (P-13) issued by the Managing Committee should be quashed. The third relief sought for by the petitioner is that the order dated August 21, 2012 (annexure P-23/T) passed by respondent No.3, the Appellate Authority, extending his suspension till inquiry is completed, be quashed. The order dated May 28, 2013 (Annexure P-30) passed by respondent No.3 holding that the documents sought by the petitioner under RTI are irrelevant and not relevant with the inquiry is also sought to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the charges as disclosed in the statement of charges (Annexure P-13) regarding absence of petitioner on different dates and other misconduct of boycotting the ceremony of Independence Day etc. are false and vague. He has also argued that the charge-sheet has been issued under Section 7 of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979 and the statement of allegations has been issued under Rule 17 of the Rules of Service and Conduct for Employees in Non-Government Recognized and Affiliated Colleges as prescribed by Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. Extension of suspension period has been challenged on the ground that it could not have been extended beyond the period of six months as per Rule 17(iv) of the Recognized Colleges Service Rules mentioned in Ordinance VII of the University Calendar. 5. I have considered all the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as, suspension order is concerned, the respondent No.3 while considering the grievance of the petitioner has already ordered that the inquiry will be completed within a period of one month after the order Annexure P-30. In view of the direction for expeditious disposal, the grievance of the petitioner that suspension period cannot be extended looses any meaning. So far as, suspension order is concerned, the respondent No.3 while considering the grievance of the petitioner has already ordered that the inquiry will be completed within a period of one month after the order Annexure P-30. In view of the direction for expeditious disposal, the grievance of the petitioner that suspension period cannot be extended looses any meaning. The petitioner is entitled to half the pay plus allowances as subsistence allowance under Rule 17 (iv) referred to by the counsel for the petitioner. Since the subsistence allowance will be paid to the petitioner, it cannot be said that there is an absolute bar to extend the suspension period beyond six months. No interference is warranted at this stage, specially, when a direction has already been issued for disposal of the inquiry within the stipulated period. 6. I have also considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry proceeding is vitiated on account of statutory provisions mentioned in the statement of charges and the letter intimating regarding the issuance of charge-sheet. The grievance of the petitioner is that the disciplinary proceedings have been ordered under Rule 7 of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979. The statement of allegations and list of witnesses though have been issued to the petitioner but grievance of the petitioner is that the allegation against him are that he had violated Rule 17 of the Rules of Service of Employees in the Non- Government Recognized and Affiliated Colleges as prescribed by the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. It requires to be clarified that the procedural law is contained in Rule 7 of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979 and the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, 2006, which have been framed under the Act in the exercise of powers under Sub-Section (1) read with Sub-Section (2) of Section 16 read with Section 4 and 5 of the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979, enabling the Governor to make the rules. The allegation against the petitioner regarding his absence and his misconduct is sub judice before the Inquiry Officer, as such, this Court is not competent to enter into the disputed question of fact regarding his conduct. The petitioner has to put-forth his defence and establish the same before the Inquiry Officer. The allegation against the petitioner regarding his absence and his misconduct is sub judice before the Inquiry Officer, as such, this Court is not competent to enter into the disputed question of fact regarding his conduct. The petitioner has to put-forth his defence and establish the same before the Inquiry Officer. It is expected that the Inquiry Officer will act fairly and consider the evidence against the petitioner besides considering the defence produced by him in accordance with the provisions of law. 7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has not been supplied the documents by the Management under RTI Act is concerned, the said contention has already been considered by the respondent No.3 by passing the order Annexure P-30. It is not out of place to observe here that a procedure for conduct of departmental inquiry is prescribed vide Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Rules, 2006. As per Rule 26, in the matters relating to discipline, penalties and appeals, employees will be governed by the Haryana Affiliated Colleges (Security of Service) Act, 1979 as amended from time to time as per Appendix ‘C’ to the Rules. Appendix ‘C’ contains that the procedure for imposition of penalties. As per Rule 11 in Appendix ‘C’, it is the prerogative of the Inquiring Authority to allow or refuse the requisition of documents depending upon his opinion pertaining to relevancy of the documents to the case. The petitioner has got a right under Rule 11 of Appendix ‘C’ to file an application before the Inquiring Authority for discovery or production of documents. It will be open to the petitioner to move any application for discovery or the production of the documents in accordance with the procedure prescribed. It is expected that the Inquiry Officer shall consider the relevancy of the documents sought to be discovered or produced and pass an appropriate order expressing an opinion regarding the relevancy of the documents in context to the charges levelled against the petitioner. 8. In view of the above circumstances, this writ petition is premature and is not maintainable at this stage. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage has argued that two writ petitions filed by the two other employees are pending before this Court for August 30, 2013 and that this petition deserves to be heard along with those petitions. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage has argued that two writ petitions filed by the two other employees are pending before this Court for August 30, 2013 and that this petition deserves to be heard along with those petitions. 10. Since, the charge-sheet against the petitioner is absolutely independent from the charge-sheet issued against the other persons, the case of the petitioner is not at par with the case of the other employees of the College. 11. Disposed of as premature/non-maintainable. 12. The petitioner may claim the subsistence allowance as ordered by respondent No.3 by filing an application.