Back
1964 Supreme(P&H) 203
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
P.C.Pandit, J.
Bishambar Lal Daya Chand
Versus
State Of Punjab, Through Secretary To Government, Punjab Irrigation
Civil Revision No. 364 of 1964,
Decided On : DECEMBER 4, 1964
A public servant is said to commit an offence of criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duty, if he, by corrupt or illegal means, or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.
Headnote:
DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - PUNJAB CIVIL SERVICES (PUNISHMENT AND APPEAL) RULES, 1952 - RULE 14 - ENHANCEMENT OF PENALTY - ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY - PERSONAL HEARING - REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL - DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR DEFENCE - CONFLICT BETWEEN RULE 14 AND ARTICLE 311 - NEW CHARGES - CORRUPTION AND FORGERY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Store-keeper in the Irrigation Department, was dismissed from service for dishonestly producing a false person before the Sub-Divisional Officer and getting him paid Rs. 55/- on account of the undisbursed pay of a dead person, and for fraudulently securing the attestation of the Sub-Divisional Officer on the voucher by false representation. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal on the grounds that he was not given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, that he was not allowed to be represented by a counsel, that he was not provided with the documents required for his defence, that Rule 14 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 was in conflict with Article 311 of the Constitution, and that the order of dismissal was based on new charges which were not the subject-matter of the enquiry held against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, that he was not entitled to be represented by a counsel at the show cause notice stage, that he was not prejudiced by the non-availability of the documents required for his defence, that Rule 14 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 was not in conflict with Article 311 of the Constitution, and that the order of dismissal was not based on new charges.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to be represented by a counsel at the show cause notice stage? 3. Whether the petitioner was prejudiced by the non-availability of the documents required for his defence? 4. Whether Rule 14 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 was in conflict with Article 311 of the Constitution? 5. Whether the order of dismissal was based on new charges?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, as he was given a show cause notice and he submitted a detailed representation in response to the notice. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to be represented by a counsel at the show cause notice stage, as there was no rule enabling him to do so. 3. The court held that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the non-availability of the documents required for his defence, as he was informed about the offices where the documents were available for his inspection and he failed to apply for their inspection or copies. 4. The court held that Rule 14 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 was not in conflict with Article 311 of the Constitution, as it provided for an opportunity to the person concerned to show cause against the proposed enhancement of penalty. 5. The court held that the order of dismissal was not based on new charges, as the allegations made against the petitioner in the charge-sheet went to show that he was guilty of corruption and forgery, and the mere absence of these two words in the charge-sheet did not afford him a ground for setting aside the order of dismissal.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
P.C.Pandit, J.
1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by Bishamber Lal against the State of Punjab challenging the legality of the order dated 16-7-1962 passed by the Secretary to the Government, Punjab, Irrigation and Power Department, dismissing him from service.
2. According to the allegations of the petitioner, he joined as a Store-keeper in the Irrigation Department in 1951 and was posted in Hissar-II-Bhakra. In 1954, he was transferred to the Bighar Sub-Division. On 7-9-1956, a payment of Rs. 55/- was made to one Harlal, Beldar, by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bighar Sub-Division. Soon after it came to light that this payment was made wrongly, because the person, who posed to be Harlal, was in fact, not that person since Harlal had died long ago. The petitioner was not responsible for getting this wrong payment made, because this was not a part of his duty, but even then the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Executive Engineer, Fatehabad Division, Hissar, asked his explanation about the circumstances in which the said payment was made. On 13-10-1956, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the Executive Engineer and maintained that he was completely innocent and was not at fault with regard to this payment. For over two years, the petitioner did not hear anything from his superior officers, when suddenly he received a statement of charges dated 27-1-1959 from the Superintending Engineer II-Bhakra Main Line, Hissar, in regard to the payment of this sum of Rs. 55/-. He was also suspended with effect from the same date. In order to give an effective reply to these charges, the petitioner requested the Executive Engineer to supply him copies of certain documents. He made this application on 2-2-1959 and requested these copies to be supplied to him by 6-2-1959. He did not hear anything in reply and he was, consequently, forced to submit his explanation on 5-3-1959 without perusing these documents. The petitioner stated that the allegations against him were baseless and he was in no way responsible for the charges levelled against him. After he had sent his reply, the petitioner received a copy of the letter written by the Executive Engineer to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bighar Sub-Division, in which it was mentioned that the documents asked for were either not in existence or were with the Anti-Corruption Department, and therefore, not available for the petitioners inspection. Subsequently, a charge was framed against the petitioner to the effect that on 7-9-1956 he dishonestly produced a false person before the Sub-Divisional Officer and got him paid Rs. 55/- on account of the undisbursed pay of Harlal, Beldar, for the month of September 1955, the real person having died long before. The charge further went on to say that as the Sub-Divisional Officer had missed to attest the thumb-impression of the payee on the hand receipt (Voucher No. 20 dated 7-9-1956) produced before him, the petitioner again produced the said papers before the Sub-Divisinal Officer on 12-9-1956 and on the latters enquiry made a false statement before him alleging that the payee had brought a chit from his Overseer regarding his identity and that the said chit was lying in his office. Thus, on this false representation, he fraudulently secured the attestation of the Sub-Divisional Officer on the voucher. A departmental enquiry was then conducted against the petitioner by Shri U. S. Kohli, General Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Hissar, who found that the charge had been brought home against him. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 17-9-1959 by the Superintending Engineer, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from Government service. In reply to this notice, the petitioner challenged the findings of the Enquiry Officer and submitted that the said officer had erred in relying upon the witnesses, who had been examined before him. It was also pointed out that t
