TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA,J - (1.) JAGDISH Singh-petitioner was appointed on the post of Clerk in the Sessions Division, Jalandhar and subsequently posted to Faridkot Sessions Division and was served with a charge sheet dated 16.08.2011. The petitioner duly submitted his reply dated 08.10.2011 to the charge sheet. The same was considered by respondent No.2. In pursuance to the order dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure P-7), the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Jalandhar has been appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Such order of appointment of an Enquiry Officer dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure P-7) has been impugned in the present writ petition.
(2.) THE petitioner has appeared in person and has been heard. The first argument advanced by the petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed in exercise of powers conferred under paragraph 5(b) of Rule 8, Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal), Rules 1970 (in short 'the Rules') as would be apparent from a bare reading of the impugned order. The petitioner would contend that paragraph 5 (b) of the Rules is applicable only in a situation where no written statement of defence has been submitted by the employee in reference to the charges that have been formulated and served. Petitioner would accordingly contend that the relevant provision was in fact paragraph 5 (a) of the Rules which covers the eventuality where a written statement of defence is duly submitted and upon consideration of the same and found to be unsatisfactory that an Enquiry Officer could have been appointed. Petitioner has further referred to various documents attached along with the writ petition to demonstrate his ill health and treatment that he is under going and submits that the seat of enquiry has been fixed up Jalandhar whereas he is presently posted at Faridkot and as such the impugned order dated 19.10.2011 calling upon him to attend the enquiry proceedings at Jalandhar would be highly inequitable. I have considered the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner. A perusal of the articles of charges formulated against the petitioner dated 16.08.2011 would clearly reveal that the same are serious in nature and pertain to insubordination and dereliction of duty. A perusal of the impugned order would further reveal that the written statement of defence, furnished by the petitioner in response to the charge sheet, has duly been considered by the competent authority and it is only thereafter that an Enquiry Officer has been appointed. I find no force in the submission made by the petitioner on account of a wrong provision i.e. paragraph 5(b) of the Rules having been mentioned in the impugned order instead of 5 (a) of the Rules that would have covered the present factual scenario. Be that as it may the impugned order itself reveals that the statement of defence has been received and has been considered by the competent authority and it is only thereafter that an Enquiry officer has been duly appointed. I do not find any basis to interfere with an order whereby an Enquiry Officer has been appointed to enquire into a set of allegations as formulated in the articles of charges served upon the petitioner. As such the prayer in the present petition seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure P-7) is rejected.
(3.) IN so far as the prayer made by the petitioner for fixing the enquiry at Faridkot from Jalandhar as the place of his posting i.e. Faridkot and in the light of specific averments and material placed on record as regards his ill health it shall be open for the petitioner to submit a request in that regard and for change of the seat of the enquiry proceedings to his present place of posting.;