- (1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 6.6.2000 (Annexure P9) passed by the Punjab School Education Board imposing on the petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service who was working as Senior Assistant (Store Keeper). The aforementioned punishment has been imposed under Regulation 5(viii) read with Regulation 6 of Punjab School Education Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1978. It has further been prayed that order dated 11.8.2003 (Annexure P12) passed by the Board on the appeal filed by the petitioner under Regulation 14 of the Regulations may also be quashed.
(2.) Brief facts of the case, necessary for disposal of the instant petition, are that Punjab State Education Board has been established under Section 3 of the Punjab School Education Board Act, 1969. The Board is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal subject to the powers under the Act to acquire, sale or dispose of property both movable or immovable. It may by that name sue and be sued. The Board opened its Text Book Depot at Sangrur and under the accounting procedure for working of the Test Book Scheme, the Store Keeper has been made responsible for the upkeep of the property, maintenance, custody, receipt and issue of text books and for proper record. The petitioner had taken charge as Store Keeper on 7.8.1979. The Board constituted a Checking Party to check the store of the text books who conducted the checking from 3.2.1981 to 9.2.1981. It found shortage of text books and exercise books worth Rs. 88,261.27 and of admission forms worth Rs. 3,955.50 ps. An F.I.R. At the instance of the Board was registered against the petitioner being F.I.R. No. 52 dated 12.2.1981 under Section 409 I.P.C. The petitioner was tried and on 30.1.1986, the Chief Judicial Magistrate held the petitioner guilty and imposed on him imprisonment of four years and a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Sangrur, was dismissed on 17.11.1987 whereby upholding the punishment of sentence and fine. The petitioner filed revision petition which was decided on 20.8.1998 by this Court and the petitioner was acquitted by extending him benefit of doubt. It is appropriate to mention that after the conviction of the petitioner by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 30.1.1986, he was dismissed from service vide order dated 17.4.1986 (Annexure P2). It is appropriate to mention that although the Board could have conducted the departmental enquiry but in view of the fact that the petitioner was convicted by a criminal Court under Section 409 I.P.C. the respondent-Board felt satisfied by imposing the penalty of dismissal keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner which had led to his conviction on a criminal charge. After the acquittal of the petitioner by virtue of judgment dated 20.8.1998, he made representation to the Board for reinstatement. Eventually, on 7.9.1999 the order of his dismissal was withdrawn and right to hold the regular departmental enquiry was kept reserved (Annexure P3). A perusal of the order further shows that a decree against the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,04,500/- had been passed against the petitioner on 20.7.1987. It is further evident from the order dated 14.9.1999 (Annexure P4) that the petitioner did not deposit the aforementioned amount with the Board causing it huge financial loss. Accordingly, he was again placed under suspension vide order dated 14.9.1999 (Annexure P4). On 1.10.1999, a regular departmental enquiry was initiated against him and following five charges were framed :- "1. As per the list enclosed Shri Harcharan Singh, Senior Assistant has committed embezzlement of text books/admission forms worth Rs. 92,216.77, Sangrur Depot, while working as Store Keeper. 2. Shri Harcharan Singh, Senior Assistant has misutilised his position with malafide intention while doing all this. 3. Shri Harcharan Singh, Senior Assistant has committed big fraud after misappropriating the text books/admission forms of Rs. 92,216.77. 4. Despite the decree passed by the Court for the recovery of the embezzlement amount, Shri Harcharan Singh, Senior Assistant has not deposited the requisite amount in the office and by this way he has violated the orders passed by the Court. 5. Shri Harcharan Singh, Senior Assistant has acted against office discipline while misappropriating the books".
(3.) The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 14.2.2000 (Annexure P7) concluded that charge Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5 have not been proved and charge No. 4 alone has been proved. The findings of the Enquiry Officer on charge No. 4 are as under :- "Charge No. 4 : The D.E. has admitted that he knows about the decree of Rs. 92,216.77 passed by the Court against him and he has not filed any appeal against this decree. He also stated that he is ready to deposit this amount. Simultaneously, he also stated that he has not received the copy from Court and the Court or the Board has not sent any notice to him for deposit of the aforesaid amount till date. This is most important fact. Neither any witness of the Board nor P.O. has produced any order from the Board or from the Court whereby the D.E. had been directed to deposit the amount within the fixed duration and for the violation of which the D.E. could be held guilty, however, Shri Bharat Bhushan, witness of the Board, Law Officer has mentioned in his statement that on 20.7.1987 Sub Judge, Sangrur passed order to recover Rs. 92,216.77 along with 6% interest. MW-2 Shri Som Nath, Senior Manager Books has stated in his statement that the Court has passed decree against D.E. for recovery of Rs. 1,04,500/- and the D.E. filed appeal which was dismissed by the District Judge because Shri Harcharan Singh, Senior Assistant failed to deposit the amount of decree. For this reason, the Board also filed execution for the recovery of the aforesaid amount. Keeping in view the aforesaid statement it becomes crystal clear that the D.E. has not deposited the requisite amount even after passing of the decree of Rs. 1,04,500/- and dismissal of his appeal by Addl. District Judge which he should have done. D.E. has the orders regarding decree because on the basis of the orders regarding decree he filed appeal in the Court of District Judge. His version that he has not received the copy of the order, is not correct. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, charge No. 4 stands established against D.E.";