Back
1990 Supreme(P&H) 431
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.R.Majithia, J.
Bhanwar Singh
Versus
State Of Haryana
C.M. No. 5856 of 1990,
Decided On : JUNE 27, 1990
An employer cannot harass and humiliate an employee by delaying an enquiry against him, withdrawing his powers and facilities, and reducing his pay without any justification.
Headnote:
PUNJAB CIVIL SERVICE (PUNISHMENT AND APPEAL) RULES 1952 - RULE 7 - ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS - DROPPING OF ENQUIRY - DELAY IN COMPLETION OF ENQUIRY - HARASSMENT OF EMPLOYEE - WITHDRAWAL OF DRAWING AND DISBURSING OFFICER POWERS - REDUCTION IN PAY - WITHDRAWAL OF JEEP FACILITY - VINDICTIVE ATTITUDE OF EMPLOYER - QUASHING OF ORDERS - RESTORATION OF BENEFITS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Deputy Director of Agriculture, was placed under suspension in 1981 and served with a charge-sheet. An enquiry officer was appointed in 1982, but the enquiry was not proceeded with. In 1989, the government directed the enquiry officer to complete the enquiry within one month, but the enquiry was still not completed. The petitioner was posted as Principal of the Agriculture Training Institute in 1988, but was not given the higher pay scale of a Joint Director of Agriculture. In 1989, the petitioner's powers as Drawing and Disbursing Officer were withdrawn and delegated to the Accounts Officer of the Institute. In 1990, the petitioner's pay was reduced and his jeep facility was withdrawn.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the enquiry against the petitioner had been pending for over eight years and that there was no material or evidence to substantiate the allegations against him. The court also found that the withdrawal of the petitioner's powers as Drawing and Disbursing Officer, the reduction in his pay, and the withdrawal of his jeep facility were all arbitrary and vindictive acts. The court held that the petitioner had been harassed and humiliated by the respondents.
Issues: 1. Whether the enquiry against the petitioner should be dropped due to the delay in its completion? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the higher pay scale of a Joint Director of Agriculture? 3. Whether the withdrawal of the petitioner's powers as Drawing and Disbursing Officer was lawful? 4. Whether the reduction in the petitioner's pay was lawful? 5. Whether the withdrawal of the petitioner's jeep facility was lawful?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the enquiry against the petitioner should be dropped due to the delay in its completion. The court found that there was no material or evidence to substantiate the allegations against the petitioner and that the enquiry officer had not taken any steps to proceed with the enquiry for over eight years. The court held that the delay in completing the enquiry was unreasonable and that it amounted to harassment of the petitioner. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the higher pay scale of a Joint Director of Agriculture. The court found that the petitioner had not been promoted to the post of Joint Director of Agriculture and that he was only posted as the Principal of the Agriculture Training Institute in his own pay scale. 3. The court held that the withdrawal of the petitioner's powers as Drawing and Disbursing Officer was unlawful. The court found that the Director of Agriculture, Haryana, was not the competent authority to withdraw the powers of Drawing and Disbursing Officer from the petitioner. The court held that the only competent authority to declare a Disbursing Officer was the Administrative Department, which means the Secretary to Government of the Department concerned and not any other officer. 4. The court held that the reduction in the petitioner's pay was unlawful. The court found that the reduction in pay was ordered without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The court held that the reduction in pay was a violation of the principle of natural justice. 5. The court held that the withdrawal of the petitioner's jeep facility was unlawful. The court found that the order withdrawing the jeep facility was arbitrary and vindictive. The court held that the withdrawal of the jeep facility was not in the interest of administration.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders dropping the enquiry against the petitioner, withdrawing his powers as Drawing and Disbursing Officer, reducing his pay, and withdrawing his jeep facility. The court also restored the petitioner's pay to the higher scale of Rs.1,560/-.
G. R. Majithia, J.
1. This judgment disposes of Civil Writ Petitions No.5165 of 1989, 15231 of 1989 and 7981 of 1990. The last mentioned writ petition was ordered to be disposed of with Civil Writ Petitions No.5165 and 15231 of 1989.
2. In C. W. P. No.5165 of 1989 the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the enquiry proceedings pending against him since 1981 and a further direction that after quashing of the enquiry proceedings, he should be allowed all the consequential benefits which were withheld because of the pendency of the enquiry proceedings.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Director Agriculture on September 23, 1976. He was placed under suspension vide order dated March 27, 1981. On June 30, 1981, the statement of charges and the statement of allegations were served upon him. The petitioner filed written reply to the chargesheet on July 22, 1981. On receipt of the reply, the order of suspension was withdrawn and the petitioner was reinstated on February 2, 1982. Thereafter he was posted as Chief Training Officer, Hansi. On February 17, 1982, the Enquiry Officer Vigilance, Haryana was appointed as Inquiry officer to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1952 (for short the Rules ). The Inquiry Officer did not proceed with the enquiry as presumably there was no adequate material to proceed with the same as provided under Rule 7 of the Rules. In paragraph 8 of the petition, the petitioner has averred as under:-
"the averments made in the paras above show that despite best efforts made by the Government and the offices of the Director and the Deputy Director, no proof indicating towards the guilt of the accused had been found. The Enquiry Officer of the Vigilance Department had thought that the material on the record was not at all adequate to proceed with the enquiry under Rule 7. However, for the reasons best known to the respondent, the petitioner was being harassed unnecessarily by virtue of this pending enquiry. Nothing has been done to advance the proceedings of Enquiry and this Sword of Damocles has been left hanging on the head of the petitioner to hang him whenever an opportunity comes. "
4 In the written statement, the respondent No.2 did not controvert the specific stand taken by the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer did not proceed with the enquiry. To the contrary, the respondent has only stressed in the corresponding paragraph that the petitioner had bungled with certified Gram seed. The pleas taken in this paragraph are the same which were the subject-matter of the charge-sheet. The respondent has in substance reiterated the allegations which were the basis of the charge-sheet, but did not controvert the pleas taken in the petition.
5. As observed earlier, the petitioner has taken a positive stand that the Enquiry Officer was appointed on February 17, 1982, but he did not proceed with the enquiry thereafter. This specific averment was not controverted by the respondent. From a plea which is not controverted, an interference can be drawn that the same was admitted to be correct.
6. In paragraph 2 of the written statement, respondent No.2 has admitted that the enquiry against the petitioner is still pending and the Government has written a letter dated August 28, 1989 to the Enquiry Officer to complete the enquiry and submit his report within one month.
7. The learned counsel for the State has very fairly stated at the Bar that the enquiry has still not been completed by the Enquiry Officer. He, however, states that he has some information that the Government has directed the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry by holding day to day proceedings. This statement of the State counsel is refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who maintains that the Enquiry Officer has still not summoned the petitioner to join the enquiry proceedings. The State counsel did not produce the file to satisfy me ab
