B D MATHUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Sub Divisional Engineer who has since retired from service, has a two fold grievance. Firstly, he challenges the charge-sheet issued to him vide letter dated September 11,1987 which relates to an event of the year 1974-75, and secondly, he is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in withholding the retirement benefits on account of the pendency of the said charge-sheet. The primary challenge to the validity of the charge-sheet is based on the ground of inordinately long delay of 12 years. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner joined service in the State of Punjab on October 31,1956 as a Junior Engineer. In course of time, the petitioner appears to have been promoted on temporary/adhoc basis to the post of Sub-Divisional Engineer. He ultimately retired from service on January 31,1991.

(3.) It is averred during the year 1974-75, the petitioner was working as Sub-Divisional Engineer in the Store Sub-Division of the Chandigarh Administration. While working as such he is alleged to have made a payment of Rs.2,69,509-80 through a bank draft dated April 5, 1975 to M/s Saraswati Steel Rolling Mills, Jalandhar towards the cost of 140.00 MT of 12mm dia steel. The firm actually supplied only 58.605 MT of steel. On account of the failure of the Firm to supply either the remaining quantity of material or to refund the balance amount of Rs. 1,56,891-07 it was felt that the loss has been caused to the Govt by the negligence of the petitioner. On that premises, a charge-sheet was'served on him long after his repatriation to the State of Punjab vide letter dated September 11,1987. The petitioner avers that he had submitted his reply to the charge-sheet pointing out that he had acted in complete conformity with the directions of the senior officers and that he was not responsible for any loss that may have occurred. No action on this reply was taken till September 23,1991 when the petitioner received a letter from the Enquiry Officer calling upon him to appear on October 8,1991. In the meantime, even part of retirement benefits like gratuity, leave encashment and other dues were withheld. The petitioner challenges the action of the Govt, in initiating departmental proceedings against him as also in withholding his retirement benefits as being totally arbitrary and violative of the principles of nature justice.