- (1.) Petitioner has questioned the legality of the order of punishment dated 1.10.1990 issued by the Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab. He also questioned the order passed by the appellate authority on April 30, 1991 partly allowing his appeal against the order of punishment.
(2.) Facts of the case are that while the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, Jalandhar when he was served with charge-sheet Annexure P/1 dated 5.10.1986 for initiation of a departmental inquiry under rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge-sheet and then the inquiry was entrusted to Deputy Director (Fields)-cum-Inquiry Officer. In his report dated December 30, 1988 (Annexure P/2), the Inquiry Officer recorded a finding that charges levelled against the petitioner have not been proved.. Thereafter the disciplinary authority called upon the petitioner for personal hearing. Shri Rajesh Chhabra the then Director, Food and Supplies, Government of Punjab gave personal hearing to the petitioner. However, before Shri Chhabra could pass order, he was transferred. His successor-in-office Mrs. Romila Dubey finally passed the order of punishment on 1.10.1990 and inflicted a penalty of stoppage of three annual increments with cummulative effect on the petitioner. Petitioner appealed against the order of punishment by filing an appeal under rule 15 of the Rules, 1970 and he was partly successful in persuading the appellate authority inasmuch as the appellate authority reduced the penalty of punishment of stoppage of three annual increments without cummulative effect to stoppage of two increments without cummulative effect. The petitioner filed review petition before the Secretary Food and supplies Department and this petition of the petitioner has been dismissed as is evident from communication Annexure P/8.
(3.) Petitioner has challenged the legality of order passed by the Punishing Authority on various grounds set out in the writ petition. His plea is that the punishing authority has travelled beyond the scope of charge-sheet in recording the finding of guilt against the petitioner. Another.plea of the petitioner is that the punishing authority has not recorded his conclusion on the basis of evidence adduced during the course of inquiry and instead it has proceeded on pure conjectures and surmises. Yet another submission of the petitioner is that no real opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to him by the disciplinary authority because the officer who heard him had not passed the order of punishment and the one who had passed the order of punishment had not heard him. The last ground of challenge to the order of punishment is that the very initiation of inquiry is vitiated on account of pre-determination of the guilt of petitioner and non-application of mind by the punishing authority. Appellate order has been assailed on the ground that the appellate authority has also travelled beyond the scope of the charges and has recorded findings adverse to the petitioner without affording him by any opportunity of hearing. The petitioner has also questioned the action initiated against him on the ground that one B.C.Kashyap, Inspector of the department was awarded similar punishment but the appellate authority quashed the order of punishment vide order dated 20.6.1991 and although his case was more or less identical to that of Mr. B.C. Kashyap, the punishment awarded to him has been sustained by the appellate authority with slight modification.;