Sabina, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this petition challenging the orders dated 1.4.2003 (Annexure P -8/1) and 14.8.2007 (Annexure P -10) whereby punishment of censure and recovery of Rs. 1,58,802/ - was imposed on him and the orders dated 15.1.2008 (Annexure P -12) and 19.9.2011 (Annexure P -15) whereby the appeals filed by the petitioner against the punishment order, were dismissed.
(2.) CASE of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined with the respondent -board as Junior Engineer on 19.12.1973. On 28.6.2000, the Chief Administrator, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (for short 'PUDA) constituted a fact finding committee for inspection of the site. The committee submitted its report dated 3.7.2000 (Annexure P -2). Similarly the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA vide Annexure P -3/1 ordered fact finding enquiries pertaining to the year 1997 -1998, 1998 -1999 and 1999 -2000. The fact finding committee submitted its report Annexure P -3/2 dated 7.7.2000. Charge sheet dated 22.12.2000 (Annexure P -4) was issued to the petitioner with regard to maintenance expenditure for shrubs/trees pertaining to the year 1997 -1998 and 1998 -1999. The enquiry officer submitted his report dated 14.1.2003 (Annexure P -6) wherein it was held that the charges against the petitioner and his co -employees stood proved. Punishing authority passed the order dated 1.4.2003 (Annexure P -8/1) imposing punishment of censure and recovery of Rs. 1,58,802/ - against the petitioner. Orders were also passed against the co -employees of the petitioner. First appellate authority vide its order dated 12.1.2007 remanded the matter back to the punishing authority for passing a fresh order after giving personal hearing to the petitioner. The punishing authority vide order dated 14.8.2007 (Annexure P -10) reiterated its earlier order. Thereafter, the first appellate authority vide order dated 15.1.2008 (Annexure P -12) rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. Petitioner preferred second appeal Annexure P -13 on 12.2.2008. Thereafter, petitioner filed CWP No. 19303 of 2009 challenging the punishment order as well as the order passed by the first appellate authority. However, vide order dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure P -14), the said petition was disposed of with a direction to the Chairman, PUDA to consider and dispose of the second appeal, pending before it within three months. Thereafter, the second appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 19.9.2011 (Annexure P -15). Hence, the present petition by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the enquiry officer had failed to take in consideration that petitioner had worked as Divisional Engineer (Civil), PUDA, Patiala during the period from January 1997 to April 1998. Therefore, petitioner could not have been penalized to repay the amount in question for two years. Recovery could have been effected from the petitioner with regard to period he had remained on duty.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that six employees were served with charge sheets and recoveries were ordered to be effected from them as per their involvement. The amount sought to be recovered from the six employees, was not the same. Rather, from the petitioner, recovery was to the tune of Rs. 1,58,802/ - whereas from K.B. Passi, Divisional Engineer (Civil), recovery was to the tune of Rs. 3,78,956/ -. Recovery from N.S. Kahlon, Divisional Engineer (Civil) was to the tune of Rs. 88,713/ - whereas from Paramjit Singh, Divisional Engineer (Civil), recovery was to the tune of Rs. 29,571/ -, from Rajinder Singh, Sub Divisional Engineer, recovery was to the tune of Rs. 6,56,041/ - and from Manjeet Singh, Junior Engineer, recovery was to the tune of Rs. 29,571/ -. Petitioner had been given full opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings.;