S.S. Nijjar, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks issue of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 15.2.1993, Annexure P -27, passed by respondent No. 1 - Board, vide which the petitioner has been removed from service.
(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a Sub Divisional Officer in the year 1968 and was posted at Bhakhra Power House in the Bhakhra Beas Management Board. He was confirmed as such in the year 1974 and promoted on the post of Executive Engineer in the month of December, 1982. In the month of October, 1987, he was posed as Executive Engineer in the office of Directorate Rural Electrocation, Head Office, Haryana State Electricity Board, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as the H.S.E.B.). In May, 1988, he was posted as Executive Engineer (Operation), H.S.E.B., Hansi. In May, 1989, he was transferred as Executive Engineer in the office of H.S.E.B. (Operation), Gurgaon. He remained posted there till 31.7.1991. On 1.8.1991, he was transferred from Gurgaon to Panchkula as Executive Engineer in the office of the Rural Electrocation Directorate, Head Office, H.S.E.B., Panchkula. He joined there on 7.8.1991. Thereafter he proceeded on Earned Leave for 45 days. Before proceedings on leave, the petitioner handed over the charge by letter dated 20.12.1991. The petitioner, however, could not join duly as, according to him, he had fallen ill. He was under medical treatment of a duly qualified doctor, namely Dr. P.N. Rao. Although the petitioner had been transferred from Gurgaon, yet he did not vacate the official accommodation till the issuance of charge -sheet dated 9.7.1992. The petitioner was charge -sheeted on the following two charges : - "1. Sh. P. Suba Rao, Xen has remained wilfully absent from duty w.e.f. 13.2.92 till date as per the details given in the statement of allegations. 2. That he has violated Board's Accommodation Regulation by not vacating Board's residence at Gurgaon after his transfer during 7/91". The petitioner was placed under suspension on 6.7.1992. The enquiry officer was appointed on 9.9.1992, Annexure P -13. The departmental enquiry was directed to be completed within a period of 45 days positively. The enquiry proceedings were completed in five sittings. The enquiry report is made on 29.11.1992. The Enquiry Officer retired on 30.11.1992. Mr. Patwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Enquiry has been conducted in breach of principles of natural justice. There is also breach of Rule 8.15 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1952. The petitioner was not given three clear days time prior to the examination of the witnesses of the department. It is also submitted that the new evidence which has been permitted to be produced by the respondents could not be so permitted in the absence of any inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has been originally produced. It is also submitted that most crucial evidence in favour of the petitioner was that of Dr. P.N. Rao. When he was summoned by the Enquiry Officer, it was not possible for the Doctor (P.N. Rao) to appear before the Enquiry Officer and he had made a request for adjournment of the enquiry from the month of November to the month of December. This reasonable request of Dr. P.N. Rao was not accepted. Consequently, the petitioner was unable to rely on the evidence which would have clearly shown that the petitioner was rendered immovable due to back pain. Further more, it was submitted that the Enquiry Officer was conducting the proceedings in undue haste due to his impending retirement. Learned counsel submits that this becomes obvious from the fact that the enquiry report was submitted only one day before the retirement of the Enquiry Officer. According to the learned counsel, the cumulative effect of all the aforesaid facts would lead to a conclusion that the petitioner was denied a reasonable opportunity of putting forward his case.
(3.) MR . Patwalia further submitted that even if enquiry report is held to be not vitiated, the impugned order is still liable to be quashed as the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the misconduct, if any, committed by the petitioner. It is submitted that under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has the jurisdiction to interfere and quash the order of punishment if the same is found to be disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Learned counsel cited the judgment of the Supreme Court given in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., 1996(1) SCT 617 (SC): , in support of his submission that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can even substitute a lesser punishment for the punishment awarded to the delinquent official. In support of the submission that the punishment is far in excess of the proved misconduct, learned counsel submitted that at the time when the charge -sheet was issued, the petitioner had put in 25 years of service. All his Annual Confidential Reports upto that time are either very good or excellent. Till that time the petitioner was an asset to the respondent -Board. He had published many papers of national level on the subject in which he was an expert.;