Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2772 (PNJ)

Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab

2019-10-15

ARUN MONGA

body2019
Judgment Mr. Arun Monga, J. (Oral):- Inter alia, issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari has been sought to set aside order dated 08.03.2018 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.3- District Development and Panchayat Officer, Amritsar and order dated 08.10.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.4- Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Block Riyya, District Amritsar. 2. Brief factual narrative first. 3. Petitioners are working as Gram Sewaks (later re-designated as Village Development Officer-cum-Panchayat Secretary) and are governed by the Punjab Department of Rural Development and Panchayats (Class-III) Service Rules, 1988 (Rules for short). 4. Respondent No.4 passed an order dated 10.02.2014 against the then Sarpanch Smt. Balwinder Kaur directing her to deposit assessed amount under Section 216 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. After a lapse of more than 04 years, respondent No.3 passed impugned order dated 08.03.2018 that in case recovery against the then Sarpanch could not be effected then the same be recovered from the petitioners/Panchayat Secretary, as per the observations made by the Secretary of Rural Development and Panchayat in an administrative meeting. Pursuant thereto, a notice dated 24.09.2018 (Annexure P-3) was issued by respondent No.4 asking them to respond with regard to the deposit of assessed amount proposed to be recovered from them. 5. Reply dated 01.10.2018 (Annexure P-4) was filed by petitioner No.1 that no recovery could be made without conducting proper inquiry. It was stated that, in any case, if any such inquiry was conduced, the petitioners were not associated with the same. Disregarding the same, respondent No.4 passed recovery order dated 08.10.2018, impugned herein, against the petitioners. Hence the writ petition. 6. I have heard the rival contention of the learned counsels and I am of the view that the impugned orders, herein, have been passed arbitrarily without following any rule or regulation and in violation of the relevant service rules. 7. For ready reference, Rule 17 of the Rules is reproduced here-in-below:- “17. Discipline, Penalties and Appeals.- (1) In the matter of discipline, punishment and appeals, the members of the Service shall be governed by the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, as amended from time to time. 7. For ready reference, Rule 17 of the Rules is reproduced here-in-below:- “17. Discipline, Penalties and Appeals.- (1) In the matter of discipline, punishment and appeals, the members of the Service shall be governed by the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, as amended from time to time. (2) The authority empowered to impose penalties as specified in rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1970 and the appellate authority thereunder in respect of the members of the Service shall be as specified in Appendix ‘C’ to these rules. (3) The authority competent to hear an appeal against an order specified in rule 15 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 other than an order imposing any of the penalties as mentioned in Appendix ‘C’ to these rules, shall be specified in Appendix ‘D’ to these rules.” 8. Rule 17, ibid, would clearly reveal that in the matter of discipline/punishment and appeals, the petitioners are governed by Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1970. Thus, in case, any recovery in the nature of punishment is to be imposed, the prescribed procedure has to be followed. Whereas, in the present case, impugned order of recovery has been passed without following any procedure and concededly, on the basis of some oral observations of respondent No.1 i.e. Secretary of the Department. The same cannot, therefore, be sustained in law. 9. Having perused the contents of the return filed by the respondents, not only the case on merits of the petition has been admitted though by implication but, even otherwise, no explanation, let alone any plausible one, has been rendered as to why the punishment of imposing the penalty of recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,83,600/- (from petitioner No.1) and Rs.75,000/- (from petitioner No.2), respectively was imposed on the petitioners without either issuance of any show cause notice or granting them an opportunity of being heard or any departmental proceedings. 10. In the premise, impugned order(s) passed qua the petitioners for recovery of aforesaid amount is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, impugned orders are hereby set aside. 11. Petition stands allowed.