Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 22 (PNJ)

B. C. Verma v. State of Haryana

2014-01-08

BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON

body2014
Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J. Aggrieved from order dated 23.10.1996 (Annexure P-10) as also order dated 06.05.1996 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner seeks directions to the respondents to take him back in service to the post of Store keeper with full back wages. The petitioner, in pursuance to the appointment letter dated 30.04.1975, had joined as a Clerk with respondent No. 2- Moti Lal Nehru School of Sports, Rai and was later on promoted as Store Keeper vide order dated 26.08.1980 (Annexure P-1). He was granted selection grade vide communication of 24.02.1984 (Annexure P-2) and was confirmed as Store keeper w.e.f. 08.01.1987. On 20.07.1993 (Annexure P-3) the petitioner was transferred to District Sports Officer, Yamuna Nagar. The petitioner challenged his transfer order by way of Civil Writ Petition No. 8988 of 1993 wherein vide interim order, he was allowed to retain his official accommodation at the school for residence of his family though his transfer order was not stayed. He joined his new place of posting as an Assistant at Yamuna Nagar. Finally, this court quashed the order of transfer dated 20.07.1993 on 17.02.1995 and the petitioner went back to his original posting. 2. During his posting at Yamuna Nagar, certain differences emerged between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. For certain alleged omissions and commissions, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. His prayer for change of the enquiry officer was not accepted. His prayer for appointment of an advocate on his behalf was also declined. Vide report dated 18.04.1995 (Annexure P-6) of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was indicted. Representation of the petitioner levelling allegations of malafides against respondent No. 3 was sent to the District Sports Officer, Yamuna Nagar, who had written to respondent No. 3 not to proceed further with the matter. It is further averred that despite this direction, order of imposing punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner was made. The appeal was preferred against the said order and in pursuance to the order passed in appeal, order regarding compulsory retirement of the petitioner, was modified and appeal, thus, was partly allowed. 3. On the other hand, the respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner tooth and nail. It has been averred by the respondents that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands. Validity and legality of the impugned orders has been asserted by the respondents. 3. On the other hand, the respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner tooth and nail. It has been averred by the respondents that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands. Validity and legality of the impugned orders has been asserted by the respondents. Prayer for dismissal of the petition has been sought. 4. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the paper book with their assistance. 5. Before embarking upon adjudication of rival claim of the parties, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the facts about which there is no dispute. 6. The petitioner, an employee of respondent No. 3 was also enjoying facility of residential accommodation provided by his employer. Though pursuant to transfer order dated 20.07.1993 having been relieved of his duties by respondent No. 3, the petitioner had joined the office of District Sports Officer, Yamuna Nagar, he had gone back to respondent No. 3 on 15.04.1995, since his transfer order dated 20.07.1993 was quashed vide order dated 17.02.1995 of this court passed in CWP No. 8988 of 1993. 7. During the interregnum, as per the interim order of the court, the petitioner had kept the official accommodation at Rai. However, he had also claimed house rent allowance for the residential accommodation hired by him at Yamuna Nagar. 8. He then was charge sheeted on 31.10.1995 for having wrongly drawn house rent allowance at Yamuna Nagar. He had participated in the enquiry but had made representation to respondent No. 1 for an independent inquiry. In pursuance of the enquiry report, the petitioner was compulsory retired on 06.05.1996. Appeal against this order was preferred by him on 15.05.1995 and in the appeal, the petitioner was ordered to be re-instated at the lower post of Clerk at the stage at which he had been before being promoted to the post of a store keeper. 9. It is also evident from the paper book that though respondent No. 3 was inclined to make an order of dismissal against the petitioner but as it was to entail disqualification for future employment, considering the circumstances prevailing at his family front and possible plight of members of his family, instead of dismissal from service he was compulsorily retired from service. While accepting appeal (Annexure P-9) substantial relief was granted to the petitioner on 23.10.1996 (Annexure P-10). While accepting appeal (Annexure P-9) substantial relief was granted to the petitioner on 23.10.1996 (Annexure P-10). Though indictment of the petitioner was maintained, converting the order of compulsory retirement, punishment of reduction in rank was given. 10. It remains a fact that despite retention of residential accommodation at Rai (Sonepat) pursuant to order dated 17.02.1995 of this court passed in CWP No. 8988 of 1993, the petitioner had given written information to District Sports Officer, Yamuna Nagar (where he was transferred) that he had not been provided Government accommodation. Concealing the fact of retention of residential accommodation at Rai, he drew house rent allowance while serving at Yamuna Nagar knowing well that he was in occupation of government accommodation at Rai also. He continued drawing house rent during the period of his stay at Yamuna Nagar w.e.f. 25.07.1993 to 14.04.1995. 11. It is strange that instead of explaining his position as to how and in what circumstances, he was drawing the house rent at Yamuna Nagar, while he was continuing in possession of the Government accommodation at Rai, he by concealing the earlier stated facts, had been levelling counter allegations of harassment and humiliation. 12. The petitioner was charge-sheeted and a departmental enquiry was initiated against him. He made endeavour to resist the enquiry and refused to receive the orders in this behalf. Even when he later appeared before the Enquiry Officer, he refused to participate in the enquiry and levelled allegations that the enquiry officer was inimical towards him. On the request of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer was changed. Even against the new Enquiry Officer, he made the same allegations. 13. It is further evident that the petitioner had been indulging in criminal as well as civil litigation in different courts against his higher authorities and had been side-tracking the real issues by adopting unscrupulous methods. It transpires that when the petitioner was allowed to present his case, he had not come forward to participate and had rather wrongfully abstained from the enquiry by levelling baseless allegations. It further transpires that when second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner, he again adopted the same trick and wrote to the Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Haryana, Sports & Youth Welfare Department for change of the punishing authority. Even when nothing beneficial came in his way and the enquiry continued his approach was highly negative. It further transpires that when second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner, he again adopted the same trick and wrote to the Commissioner & Secretary to Government of Haryana, Sports & Youth Welfare Department for change of the punishing authority. Even when nothing beneficial came in his way and the enquiry continued his approach was highly negative. Finally order dated 06.05.1996 was passed. 14. It is clear from the impugned orders that the petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard at every stage including at the appellate stage. If no cross examination was conducted by the petitioner on the witnesses of the department, it was because of fault of the petitioner himself as on his request, the enquiry officer had been changed but still he persisted by moving representation to change the punishing authority as well, but got no relief. It also transpires that the petitioner had even filed a criminal complaint against the superiors in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. 15. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, no fault can be found with conduct of the enquiry. The allegations regarding embezzlement and tempering of records in stock books of the school etc. have not been controverted by the petitioner by cogent and convincing material. It transpires that the petitioner had adopted unscrupulous tactics by moving representations one after the other on fake grounds to get relief for him. He was rightly not granted the relief as he did not deserve the same. Being devoid of any merit, the present writ petition is dismissed.