The dismissal of the petitioner was quashed due to a flawed inquiry process that violated principles of natural justice, resulting in shockingly disproportionate punishment.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

The petitioner by way of this writ petition prays for quashing of the punishment order of dismissal dated 01.07.1993; enquiry report dated 07.08.1992; and the order dated 23.02.1994 passed in the appeal whereby his appeal was rejected. He further prays to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits, continuity of service including arrears of salary, seniority etc.

Brief facts:

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner served in the Indian Army from 30.11.1962 till 26.05.1970, whereafter he was selected and appointed in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies on 14.05.1974. In the ordinary course, he had attained superannuation in the year 2003.

3. During his service, he was sent on deputation to the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'PUNSUP') on 14.09.1979. While on deputation, he was deployed as Inspector Incharge for the Lehragaga Centre in Sangrur District. He remained on deputation upto 26.11.1984, whereafter he was repatriated to his parent department. After having been repatriated to his parent department, he was suspended vide order dated 09.09.1986 and was charge-sheeted by serving a memorandum on 09.09.1986 wherein allegations were levelled on him for committing misconduct while on deputation with PUNSUP for the year 1982-83 and 1983-84.

4. As per the charge-sheet issued under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'Conduct Rules of 1970'), it was alleged that after reversion of petitioner to his parent department, it was found through the charge list while handing over the charge to Pargat Singh, Inspector that all the stores of wheat were infested with insects and the stock was in the condition of atta formation, and there was shortage of wheat noticed in the various bags in various godowns; and at the time of delivery of stock taken by Pargat Singh, Inspector, shortage was found in various godowns as mentioned in the tabular form in the charge-sheet. Pargat Singh has showed shortage at the time of taking over charge, 12 kg per bag while at the time of delivery of stock, it was 22.125 to 27.072 kg per bag. Thus, a shortage of 8508.84 quintals was found at the time of delivery of stock purchased by him. From the comparison of ledgers maintained by the petitioner/Rameshwar Dass and the Accounts Wing, it was found that there was shortage to the tune of 4276.61 quintals which was shown by the petitioner personally in the stock legers during period from October, 1982 to August, 1984. It was thus alleged that the Corporation suffered a huge loss due to his negligence and a total shortage of 12815.45 quintals of wheat was attributed to him which came to the value of Rs. 25,63,000/-. There was another charge of not accounting for Rs.1,179/- as a petty cash account. The third charge levelled was with regard to allegation of wheat stock of 57968 bags purchased by him which was rejected due to his negligence. The rejected wheat was auctioned at a lower rate for which the Corporation suffered alleged loss of Rs.38,64,300/-. Therefore it was alleged that a loss of Rs.64,28,569/- was suffered by the Corporation on account of the petitioner which was recoverable from him.

5. Thus, it was a case alleging shortage in wheat as well as auctioning of rejected wheat on lower rate and non-depositing of petty advance, resulting in allegations of negligence towards duty; not keeping the stock of the Corporation in safe custody; embezzlement of material/stock of the department; and eye-washing the interest of the department.

Five witnesses were examined under the charge sheet and there was a list of record which was mentioned in support of the allegations.

6. The Deputy Director of Food and Civil Supplies was appointed as an Inquiry Officer who submitted his inquiry report, but the same was never made available to the petitioner. He was dismissed from service based on such