M.R. Agnihotri, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Madan Lal, Revenue Accountant, working in the Punjab State Electricity Board has filed this Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia praying for the quashing of orders dated 1st August, 1975 (Annexure P/11), and dated 19th September, 1979 (Annexure P/14) and also the order dated 19th September, 1979 (Annexure P/15) with which the statement of charges (Annexure P/16) and the statement of allegations (Annexure P/17) had been forwarded to the Petitioner, serving him a charge -sheet "under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1972, or the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1971." At the motion stage, further proceedings in pursuance of the impugned charge -sheet had been stayed by this Court, on 17th December, 1979, to which full seven years have elapsed.
(2.) THE grievance of the writ Petitioner is that while he was working as Revenue Accountant, a complaint was made against him on the basis whereof a case was registered under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, - -vide F.I.R. No. 25, dated 5th February, 1970, at Police Station. Siri Hargobindpur. However, after keeping the case pending for more than two years, it was filed on 14th February, 1972, under the orders of the Ilaqa Magistrate. Thereafter, on 3rd May, 1973, the Petitioner was served with a charge -sheet consisting of four charges and a statement of allegations in support thereof. After obtaining the reply to the charge -sheet on 23rd August. 1973, the Deputy Secretary of the Punjab State Electricity Board was appointed as Inquiry Officer to hold an inquiry into the matter. The said inquiry was accordingly held and a report was submitted to the Chief Accounts Officer of the Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala. Since the report was in favour of the Petitioner and no charge stood proved against him, Respondent No. 2 (Chief Accounts Officer) ordered reinstatement of the Petitioner in service, - -vide his order dated 25th April, 1975 (Annexure P/9). So far as the question of payment or otherwise of the arrears of salary in addition to the subsistence allowance which the Petitioner had already been disbursed during the period of suspension is concerned, decision was to be taken by the competent authority later on. This decision was ultimately communicated to the Petitioner on 1st August, 1975, intimating that he shall not be paid anything more than the suspension allowance already drawn by him. Against this order of 1st August, 1975, the Petitioner submitted his representations on 12th August, 1975 and 12th February, 1976. But on 7th December, 1979, the Petitioner was intimated that the original memorandum of charge -sheet dated 18th May, 1973 (Annexure P/4) along with the statement of charges (Annexure P/5) and the statement of allegations (Annexure P/6), had been withdrawn, and a fresh charge -sheet -was issued to him. It is these fresh communications dated 19th -September, 1979, along with statement of allegations, charge -sheets; etc., Annexure P/14 to P/17, which are the subject -matter of the, present -writ petition. The principal submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. R.P. Bali, is that once the matter had already been finally, decided and previous charge -sheet had been withdrawn, the same. could not be reopened, much less without any fresh material on, the record. In nutshell his argument is that in applying the principle, of constructive res judicata; the matter should be permitted to assume finality. The second submission, of course, is with regard to his grievance about the payment of arrears of salary which had been withheld by the Punjab State Electricity Board by, confining the same to the substance allowance alone during the period of suspension. Broadly, the claim has been founded on the principles of natural justice, which, according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, have not been observed in the present case.
(3.) THOUGH the case has been contested by the Punjab State Electricity Board by filing the written statement, yet the factual position have been almost admitted. In para 9 of the written statement, it has been admitted that the criminal case was received back from the Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, on 24th November, 1971, as untraceable due to non -availability of sufficient evidence for filing the challan in the Court. It is also admitted in para 4 thereof that the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 26th February, 1975 and the Petitioner was reinstated thereafter. However, reopening of the matter is sought to be justified by taking the plea in para 20(a) of the written statement that if due to any technical mistake, the charge -sheet is defective, the employer can withdrawn the same and on the same cause of action issue the second charge -sheet after correcting the mistake. Therefore, the doctrine of constructive res judicata has no application in the matter.;