Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1831 (HP)

Anju Bala v. State Of H. P.

2014-12-05

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Sahayak in the year 1999 on contract basis at Gram Panchayat, Choli, Development Block, Paragpur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. She was designated as Panchayat Secretary (Contract) vide letter dated 2.8.2008. Respondent No. 4 issued a notice to the petitioner dated 24.9.2013. She was also served with notice on 7.11.2013 by respondent No. 4. She was served with another notice on 4.1.2014. The Assistant Commissioner (Development)-cum-Block Development Officer, informed the petitioner that the independent charge of Gram Panchayat Kuhna was assigned to her but she failed to execute the time bound work and she was directed to hand over the whole charge of Gram Panchayat Kuhna to Sh. Kewal Krishan Panchayat Secretary, Rakkar. She was informed on 17.2.2014 that her work was not satisfactory and specific instances were stated therein vide registered letter. The petitioner was informed as to why the action under Rule 137(2) Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997, be not initiated against her. The petitioner was also permitted to file reply to the same within a week. She was called upon to appear before respondent No. 4 on 15.5.2014 at 11:00 AM vide Annexure R-5 dated 12.5.2014. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 24.5.2014 vide Annexure P-6. 2. It is evident from the plain language of sub rule (2) of Rule 137 that before imposing any penalty the employee shall be informed of the specific charges against him and shall be given a reasonable opportunity to explain his position or produce any evidence. Sub-rule (5) provides that CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964, as amended from time to time, shall apply to the servants of a Panchayat in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and Rules. 3. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1999 as Panchayat Sahayak and designated as Panchayat Secretary (Contract) in the month of August, 2008. She has been served with the notices, as discussed hereinabove. One of the charges, as per the reply, against the petitioner is that she has not supplied the entire record of the time of audit between 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2013. The other instances are mentioned in Annexure R-5 dated 17.2.2014. The petitioner was called upon to make herself available on 15.5.2014 at 11:00 AM before respondent No. 4. One of the charges, as per the reply, against the petitioner is that she has not supplied the entire record of the time of audit between 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2013. The other instances are mentioned in Annexure R-5 dated 17.2.2014. The petitioner was called upon to make herself available on 15.5.2014 at 11:00 AM before respondent No. 4. She reached the office as per the reply at 12:30 PM. 4. The Additional Deputy Commissioner has passed the order terminating the petitioner vide Annexure P-6 dated 24.5.2014 in haste. He should have waited at least up to 5:00 PM to enable the petitioner to appear before him and explain the position. The reason assigned by the petitioner of not reaching the office of respondent No. 4 in time at 11:00 AM was that there was traffic jam at Kangra. This explanation is plausible. 5. The charges leveled against the petitioner were serious in nature and these were required to be dealt with as per Rule 137 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997. There is a detailed procedure under the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the manner in which the inquiry has to be initiated and concluded. The petitioner was required to be served with notice under the rules. The inquiry was to be initiated under Rule 14 of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964. The reply of the petitioner was to be sought on the charges leveled against her. Thereafter, after receiving the reply, disciplinary authority was to take an independent decision whether to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings or to drop the same. In case the disciplinary authority had decided to continue with the proceedings, in that eventuality, the Inquiry Officer was to be appointed and petitioner was required to be represented by the Defence Assistant. The department was to lead the evidence by producing its own witnesses. The petitioner was required to be provided with an opportunity to produce her evidence. The Inquiry Officer, thereafter was required to furnish the report to the disciplinary authority, in accordance with law. In the instant case, the petitioner has only been served with show-cause notice Annexure P-5 dated 12.5.2014. She was only granted a week's time to file the reply and thereafter she was asked to appear before the Addl. District Commissioner-cum- Chief Executive Officer on 15.5.2014 at 11:00 AM. The petitioner was only late by one and a half hour. In the instant case, the petitioner has only been served with show-cause notice Annexure P-5 dated 12.5.2014. She was only granted a week's time to file the reply and thereafter she was asked to appear before the Addl. District Commissioner-cum- Chief Executive Officer on 15.5.2014 at 11:00 AM. The petitioner was only late by one and a half hour. The harsh decision by terminating the services of the petitioner on 20.5.2014, is without following the mandate of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (General) Rules, 1997. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Annexure P-6, Order dated 24.5.2014 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to re-instate the petitioner forthwith. However, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.