AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH , J. - (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court praying for quashing of the show cause notice dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure P -3), order dated 22.09.2011 (Annexure P -7) passed by Director, Secondary Education Haryana (respondent No.3) vide which punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, order dated 14.03.2012 (Annexure P -8) passed by the Director, Elementary Education, Haryana (respondent No.2) vide which punishment has been reduced to stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect and order of Revisional Authority dated 18.06.2012 (Annexure P -10) vide which the revision preferred by the petitioner stands rejected.
(2.) THE contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that charge sheet dated 02.12.2007 was served upon the petitioner on 20.12.2007. Petitioner filed a reply to the said charge -sheet on 07.01.2008. The Punishing Authority being not satisfied proceeded to appoint an Enquiry Officer who submitted his report dated 16.05.2008 (Annexure P -2) exonerating the petitioner from all the charges levelled against him. However, the Punishing Authority did not agree with the finding given by the Enquiry Officer and issued a show cause notice dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure P -3) observing therein that the Enquiry Officer while giving his findings has not taken into consideration the fact of connivance of the petitioner with the then Principal and officials of the District Education Office as also that the petitioner was fully conversant with the fact that he is an ad hoc employee and not entitled to avail of the Government loan or allotment of GPF Account Number still proceeded to avail of the said benefits which he was not entitled to. This show cause notice was responded to by the petitioner vide reply dated 02.03.2009 (Annexure P -5). The same was taken into consideration by the Punishing Authority and an order of punishment dated 22.09.2011 (Annexure P -7) was passed imposing a punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. An appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed and the punishment was reduced to stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect vide order dated 14.03.2013 (Annexure P -8). The revision preferred by the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 18.06.2012 (Annexure P -10) being without any merit. Counsel contends that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner first of all states that the Enquiry Officer has not taken into consideration the fact of connivance of petitioner with Principal and the officials of the District Education Office. He contends that this was never a charge which was framed against the petitioner and, therefore, if this is treated as a dissenting note a fresh enquiry should have been held on this point against the petitioner. The same having not been done the said observation could not have been taken into consideration for imposing punishment upon the petitioner. His further contention is that the petitioner did not withhold any information with regard to the fact that he is an ad hoc employee when he applied for the grant of loan and allotment of GPF Account Number rather it was clearly mentioned that he was an ad hoc employee. The Competent Authorities proceeded to process the claim of the petitioner and accepted his request as made by him. He further states that there has been no misrepresentation or fraud or mis -statement on the part of the petitioner and it was for the Competent Authority to grant him the benefits as he had requested or to deny the same. He further contends that the loan which was taken by the petitioner had been returned and there is nothing due on the part of the petitioner. It has further been stated that the Enquiry Officer has held that the petitioner is not responsible for the said conduct for which he has been charged. He further contends that the observation of the Punishing Authority while issuing show cause notice that the petitioner was well conversant with the fact that he is not entitled to the benefits still proceeded to apply for the same, is without any basis and cannot be made the ground for imposing an punishment upon the petitioner. Prayer has accordingly been made for setting aside the order of punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the Punishing Authority and the Appellate Authority.
(3.) ON the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the Punishing Authority has rightly taken into consideration the conduct of the petitioner. There was indeed connivance of the petitioner with Principal and officials of the District Education Office who have forwarded the claim of the petitioner for the grant of loan and for the grant of GPF Account Number being fully aware that the petitioner was an ad hoc employee and thus, was not entitled to the benefit as has been claimed by him through his applications. He states that the petitioner being a teacher was well conversant with the rules and, therefore, cannot take the benefit of ignorance of the rules/instructions. The fact remains that an ad hoc employee is not entitled to the benefit as has been claimed and, therefore, punishment orders ultimately passed by the Punishing Authority is in accordance with the rules which do not call for any interference by the Court. He contends that a lenient view has already been taken by the Appellate Authority by reducing the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect with stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. Prayer has thus been made for dismissal the writ petition.;