DALJIT SINGH KOHLI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Superintendent in the office of the Director, Health Services, Punjab has a two fold grievance. Firstly, he is aggrieved by the order dated July 21, 1993 by which a penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed on him. The petitioner has filed Civil Writ Petition No. 9970 of 1993 to challenge this order. Thereafter, on January 17, 1994 the Government has passed an order directing the issue a fresh charge sheet and orders for suspension of the petitioner. In pursuance of these orders, the petitioner was actually suspended vide order dated January 20, 1994. Aggrieved by the order of suspension the petitioner has approached this Court through a second petition No. 1508 of 1994. A few events which are relevant for the disposal of these two petitions may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The petitioner had initially joined service in the Health Department as a Clerk on November 3, 1960. He was promoted to the post of Superintendent Grade II in the year 1985. While the petitioner was working as such, a charge sheet dated September 20, 1990 was issued. A copy of this charge sheet is at Annexure P. 11 in Civil Writ Petition No. 9970 of 1993. Firstly, it was alleged that the petitioner was "running a private business under the banner of J.J. Enterprises in the name of his wife and other family members." Secondly, it was stated that in the year 1983, 20 ECG machines "were supplied to the Health Department by J.J. Enterprises, .. During the course of investigation by the Vigilance Department, it as come to light that some of the machine supplied by the firm were found to be not according to N.I.T. specifications. In spite of this, full payments were got released from certain officers". On this basis, it was infered that the petitioner "had played a positive role in this purchase, acceptance of the machines by using his official position/status in this Directrate". A third charge was also levelled against the petitioner. It was inter alia alleged that he had been asked to send "property returns on the prescribed proforma indicating the detail of the moveable and immovable property in his name and also in the name of all family members which he did not supply in spite of issue of reminders". Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of the Conduct Rules, 1996, "he was required in inform the department about the business being run by his family members which he did not do ....." It was, thus, alleged that the petitioner had acted in violation of the conduct rules. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet. After consideration of the matter, an enquiry officer was appointed who submitted a report dated August 27, 1991. A copy of enquiry report has been produced as Annexure P/18. The enquiry officer found that except charge No. 2, "regarding misuse of official position" the remaining charges were established against the petitioner. On the basis of this report, a show cause notice dated March 3, 1992 proposing a penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect only was served on the petitioner. He submitted a reply on March 25, 1992. Curiously, the Director, Health and Family Welfare by a very cryptic order disposed of the matter vide order dated August 31, 1992. He observed that "keeping in view the arguments put forth by the employee concerned at the time of personal hearing, he was administered a warning to remain within discipline instead of stopping his two annual grade increments with cumulative effect." Emboldened by this order, the petitioner represented for the grant of retrospective promotion. It appears that the matter came to the notice of the Government. It is not surprising that the Government took cognizance of the case and cancelled the order passed by the Director. Since the penalty proposed in the show cause notice was stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, the Government passed an order awarding that punishment to the petitioner. This order was conveyed to him vide letter dated July 21, 1993. A copy of this order is on record as Annexure P.25. The petitioner challenged this order through Civil Writ Petition No. 9970 of 1993. The primary ground of challenge is that the petitioner was not given any opportunity before the Government passed the impugned order.

(3.) While the writ petition was pending, it appears that the Vigilance Department was looking into the affairs of M/s J.J. Enterprises which was being managed by the petitioner's wife and his father. On January 17, 1994, the State Government informed the Director, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab of its decision to "black list M/s J.J. Enterprises, SCO 345-46, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh ..................." It was further directed that the petitioner may be placed under suspension immediately" and that "he may be served with a charge sheet with the approval of Government within 15 days". In pursuance to this order, the then Director, Health and Family Welfare (Mr. Dalbir Singh Bakshi) issued an order dated January 20, 1994 by which the petitioner was placed under suspension. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1508 of 1994. A copy of this order has been produced as Annexure P.23 with the writ petition. This petition was filed on February 1, 1994. It had come up for hearing before the Bench on February 2, 1994. Their Lordships were pleased to direct the issue of notice of motion. On February 21, 1994, the Bench passed an order directing the respondents to "serve the charge sheet within two weeks". Thereafter, the charge sheet was actually served on March 18, 1994. On March 21, 1994, the writ petition was admitted and the suspension order, a copy of which is at Annexure P. 23 was stayed. It was, however, observed that the "enquiry may proceed."