Vijender Jain, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issuance of appropriate writ to quash the order dated 16. 4. 1991 and the order dated 5. 9. 1991. Petitioner, who was working as Junior Engineer with the respondent-Department, was transferred to the Housing Division No. 1v in January 1983. In August 1983 the petitioner was directed to take charge of construction of 237 MIG Dwelling Units in Pocket KG-1, Vikaspuri, New Delhi from one A K Chopra, Junior Engineer, who was at the relevant time in-charge of construction work.

( 2 ) IT is the case of petitioner that the order transferring Mr. A K Chopra was issued by the Superintending Engineer in August 1983 and forwarded to one Radakrishan, Assistant Engineer directing the petitioner to take over charge from A. K. Chopra. Said Radakrishan endorsed the said order only on 26. 8. 1983. It is contended before me by Mr. Ambrish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the petitioner was on sanctioned leave on 26. 8. 1983 and he did not attend the office on 27. 8. 1983 as well as on 28. 8. 1983. two days, i. e. 27. 8. 1983 and 28. 8. 1983, being Saturday and Sunday were holidays in the respondent-Department. The order of handing/taking over the charge was communicated to the petitioner only on 29. 8. 1983. The case of the petitioner is that he took over charge on 29. 8. 1983 subject to verification. The charge against petitioner was as follows |-

"that the said Shri R C Jain, Junior Engineer while functioning as J. E. , Housing Division No. 1v during the year 1983 failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty inasmuch as pilferage/misappropriation of brass fitting comprising of brass valve, brass bib cock, brass stop cock, face of stop cock etc. (valued at approximately Rs. 32,000/=) stored in two locked trunks inside a romm of a vacant FF Flat No. 146 at the work site of 237 MIG Houses at Bodella, took place as a result of gross negligence of Shri Jain.

SHRI R C Jain by his above said acts of commission and omission exhibited lack of integrity and devotion to duty thereby violating Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as made applicable to D. D. A. "

( 3 ) ON the basis of aforesaid charge framed against the petitioner, the impugned order dated 16. 4. 1991 was passed imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement from the service as well as recovery of Rs. 32,000/= from the petitioner.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has vehemently challenged the mode and method of conducting the enquiry as well as assailed the finding of the enquiry report, which was the basis on which order of compulsory retirment was passed by the respondent. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Exhibit p-4 , the handing/taking over report, was not produced in original before the Enquiry Officer. He has also contended that the petitioner had signed both the pages of the said handing/taking over report but the photocopy which was produced before the Enquiry Officer, the signatures of the petitioner appeared only on the second page of the handing/taking over report, and the Enquiry Officer took that Exhibit p-4 into consideration in spite of the protest of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the first page of the said handing/taking over report was material for determining the controversy between the parties as the items, which were stolen, appeared at page-1 of the said report. Mr. Kumar took great pain in arguing that the whole approach of the Equiry Officer was based on surmises and conjectures. The fact that the handing/taking over report was not produced in original nor any attested copy thereof was produced in evidence before the Enquiry Officer, finds mention at page-91 of the paper book in the enquiry report itself.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel has further assailed the enquiry report on the ground that the Enquiry Officer held that it was for the petitioner to produce the cop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document