Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehtab S. Gill, J.—The petitioner had prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the show cause notice and the charge-sheet dated January 24, 2000 (Annexures P-4 and P-5) respectively.

The petitioner has averred that he was working as Inspector in the Co. operation Department. On December 30, 1986 as show cause notice along with the charge-sheet was served upon him stating therein that he along with one Sarup Chand misappropriated an amount of Rs. 5382.09, Rs. 2512.50 and Rs. 283.50. An enquiry was held. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Faridkot was appointed as Enquiry Officer. He submitted his enquiry report on June 12, 1989. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab Chandigarh (respondent No. 2) accepted the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and passed an order dated October 2, 1989 stopping three future annual increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect (copy is attached as Annexure P-1).

Against the order dated October 2, 1989 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No. 2), the petitioner filed an appeal before the Secretary, Government of Punjab, Cooperation Department, Chandigarh (respondent No. 1), but his appeal was dismissed vide order dated April 10, 1990 (copy is attached as Annexure P-2).

Aggrieved by the order dated October 2, 1989 (Annexure P-1) and order dated April 10, 1990 (Annexure P-2), as referred to above, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit No: 748 dated August 2, 1991 in the Court of Sub Judge IInd Class, Muktsar. Notice of the suit was issued to the respondents and after recording the evidence, the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit filed by the petitioner and set aside the order dated October 2, 1989 (Annexure P-1) and order dated April 10, 1990 (Annexure P-2) holding them to be illegal. A copy of the judgment dated November 6, 1993 passed by the learned Civil Judge is attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-3.

This judgment dated November 6, 1993 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Sub Judge lind Class, Muktsar was never challenged by the respondents and thus, it became final between the parties.

Notice of motion was issued.

Respondent Nos. I to 3 and 4 filed their separate written statements.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, perused the petition and the an-nexures attached thereto.

Learned counsel for- the petitioner has argued that the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Judge IInd Class, Muktsar dated November 6,1993 (Annexure P-3) has attained finality and now at this belated stage, a show cause notice dated January 24, 2000 (Annexure P-4) cannot be issued against the petitioner on the same grounds. He has further argued that the impugned show cause notice dated January 24, 2000 (Annexure P-4) is a photostat copy of the same show cause notice which was issued to him in the year 1989. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab and others 1991(2) SCT 302, wherein also a charge-sheet was issued in the year 1987 qua allegations pertaining to the year 1976. Immediately after the issuance of charge-sheet, the petitioner retired. Here in the present case also, the petitioner had retired. This Hon''ble Court quashed the charge-sheet and the punishment imposed because there was unreasonable delay in the proceedings.

Learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the Civil Court had decreed the suit of the petitioner only on technical ground.

11.1 have gone through the judgment dated November 6, 1993 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Sub Judge IInd Class, Muktsar. Issues were framed and the learned Civil Judge had passed the judgment after recording of evidence and then decided the suit on merits, giving his findings issue-wise. The plaintiff (petitioner herein) had sought declaration to the effect that the order dated October 2, 1989 vide which he was awarded punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments, was illegal. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. This judgment of the Sub Judge llnd Class, Muktsar is dated November 6, 1993 (Annexure P-3). Against this judgment, the respondent-State did not file any appeal. Thus, it has attained finality.

My attention was drawn by the State counsel to the stand taken by respondent-State in paragraph 10 of its reply to the present writ petition which states that a fresh enquiry on the same charges is constitutional and is justified.

I do not agree with this contention of the State counsel as the.Civil Court has already given its findings in favour of the petitioner. The respondents can- not be allowed now to issue a show cause notice and charge the petitioner with the same charges which he was charged in the year 1989 and that too after his retirement.

With those observations, the writ petition is allowed. Show cause notice and the charge-sheet dated January 24, 2000 (Anricxures P-4 and P-5) are quashed. The petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits, such as pension, leave encashment, gratuity, commuted pension all other retiral benefits. Respondents are further directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from January 31, 2000 till the dale of granting of retiral benefits to the petitioner.

Petition allowed.