Bhanwar Singh vs State of Haryana and Others

G.R. Majithia, J.—This judgment disposes of Civil Writ Petitions No. 5165 of 1989, 15231 of 1989 and 7981 of 1990. The last mentioned writ petition was ordered to be disposed of with Civil Writ Petitions No. 5165 and 15231 of 1989.

In C.W.P. No. 5165 of 1989 the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the enquiry proceedings pending against him since 1981 and a further direction that after quashing of the enquiry proceedings, he should be allowed all the consequential benefits which were withheld because of the pendency of the enquiry proceedings.

The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Director Agriculture on September 23, 1976. He was placed under suspension vide order dated March 27, 1981. On June 30, 1981, the statement of charges and the statement of allegations were served upon him. The petitioner filed written reply to the chargesheet on July 22, 1981. On receipt of the reply, the order of suspension was withdrawn and the petitioner was reinstated on February 2, 1982. Thereafter he was posted as Chief Training Officer, Hansi. On February 17, 1982, the Enquiry Officer Vigilance, Haryana was appointed as Inquiry officer to hold a departmental enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1952 (for short the Rules). The Inquiry Officer did not proceed with the enquiry as presumably there was no adequate material to proceed with the same as provided under Rule 7 of the Rules. In paragraph 8 of the petition, the petitioner has averred as under:-

"The averments made in the paras above show that despite best efforts made by the Government and the offices of the Director and the Deputy Director, no proof indicating towards the guilt of the accused had been found. The Enquiry Officer of the Vigilance Department had thought that the material on the record was not at all adequate to proceed with the enquiry under Rule 7. However, for the reasons best known to the respondent, the petitioner was being harassed unnecessarily by virtue of this pending enquiry. Nothing has been done to advance the proceedings of Enquiry and this Sword of Damocles has been left hanging on the head of the petitioner to hang him whenever an opportunity comes."

In the written statement, the respondent No. 2 did not controvert the specific stand taken by the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer did not proceed with the enquiry. To the contrary, the respondent has only stressed in the corresponding paragraph that the petitioner had bungled with certified Gram seed. The pleas taken in this paragraph are the same which were the subject-matter of the charge-sheet. The respondent has in substance reiterated the allegations which were the basis of the charge-sheet, but did not controvert the pleas taken in the petition.

As observed earlier, the petitioner has taken a positive stand that the Enquiry Officer was appointed on February 17, 1982, but he did not proceed with the enquiry thereafter. This specific averment was not controverted by the respondent. From a plea which is not controverted, an interference can be drawn that the same was admitted to be correct.

In paragraph 2 of the written statement, respondent No. 2 has admitted that the enquiry against the petitioner is still pending and the Government has written a letter dated August 28, 1989 to the Enquiry Officer to complete the enquiry and submit his report within one month.

The learned counsel for the State has very fairly stated at the Bar that the enquiry has still not been completed by the Enquiry Officer. He, however, states that he has some information that the Government has directed the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry by holding day to day proceedings. This statement of the State counsel is refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who maintains that the Enquiry Officer has still not summoned the petitioner to join the enquiry proceedings. The State counsel did not produce the file to satisfy me about the steps taken by the Enquiry Officer to proceed with the enquiry.

As observed earlier, the Enquiry Officer was appointed on February 17, 1982. He did not proceed with the enquiry. Respondent No. 1 directed the Enquiry Officer on August 28, 1989 to proceed with the Enquiry at once. Despite the directions the Enquiry Officer did not proceed with the enquiry presumably for the reason that there is no material or evidence with the respondents to substantiate the allegation. If there was substance in the allegation, the authorities would have pressurised the Enquiry officer to proceed with the enquiry and finalise it ex-peditiously. The Enquiry Officer has not taken any step in the enquiry so far. The Sword of Democles has been kept hanging over the head of the petitioner for more then eight years.

In the circumstances of the instant case, I think it will meet the ends of justice if the enquiry against the petitioner is dropped. I order accordingly. As a consequence thereto, the petitioner will be entitled to all the benefits which would have been availabe to him but for the pendency of the enquiry proceedings. The benefit will accrue to him from the date those were granted to the person immediately junior to him.

It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was posted as the Principal, Agriculture Training Institute, Jind on June 6, 1988 in place of Shri P.C. Gupta, Joint Director of Agriculture (Pulses). The post of Principal, Agriculture Training Institute, Jind is manned by an officer of the rank of Joint Director of Agriculture. The pay scale of the Joint Director Agriculture is Rs. 3000-3500-125-5000. The pay scale of the Principal of the Agriculture Training Institute.. Jind will be Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-5000 which was allowed to Joint Director Agriculture; whereas the pay scale of the Deputy Director Agriculture is Rs. 2000-35000. The petitioner was posted as Principal of the Agriculture Training Institute, but was not allowed the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-5000.

Respondent No. 2 in his written statement maintains that the petitioner was posted as the Principal of Agriculture Training Institute, Jind only in his own pay scale. He was never promoted as Joint Director Agriculture. The stand of the petitioner that the post of Principal of the Agriculture Training Institute, Jind is equivalent to the post of Joint Director of Agriculture has not been controverted. It is also not controverted that the pay scale of the post of Joint Director of Agriculute is Rs. 3000-5000. The defence of the State is that the petitioner was never promoted as Joint Director of Agriculture or as Principal of Agriculture Training Institute, Jind but was only posted as the Principal of the Training Institute in his own pay scale and, therefore, he was not entitled to the higher pay scale of the post of Joint Director of Agriculture.

Learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that since the petitioner was working against the post of Principal of the Agriculture Training Institute, Jind which is equivalen to the post of a Joint Director of Agriculture, he is entitled to the same pay scale as is permissible to the Joint Director of Agriculture. In support of this submission, he relies upon a decision of the Apex Court in Smt. P. Grover v. State of Haryana 1983 LIC 1661. In that case, Smt. P. Grover before attaining the age of superannuation was promoted as Acting District Education Officer. She was given the State Award for Teachers and the State Government had taken a policy decision that the service of those teachers who had received the National or State awards, should be extended untill they attained the age of 60 years, on an year by year basis, if their service record continued to be good otherwise. The service of Smt. Grover was extended as per the policy decision. She was not granted the salary of the higher post to which she was promoted and, on appeal, the Apex Court held that she was entitled to the salary of the higher post to which she had been promoted. The ratio of this ruling has no bearing on the facts of the instant case. In the instant case, the petitioner was not promoted against the post of Principal, Agriculture Training Institute, Jind. No promotion order has been produced on record. Even in the petition, no specific averment was made that the petitoner was ever promoted. Consequently, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to the higher pay scale permissible to the Joint Director of Agriculture. The post of Principal of the Agriculture Training Institute is equivalent to the post of Joint Director of Agriculture, but the petitioner is not entitled to higher grade since he was not promoted but posted to officiate in his own pay scale against the post of Principal of the Agriculture Training Institute.

In C.W.P. No. 15231 of 1989, the only grouse of the petitioner is that in his capacity as Principal of the Agriculture Training Institute, he was a Drawing and Disbursing Officer in respect of the staff of the Training Institute. This power was conferred on the petitioner when he was working as Principal of the Agriculture Training Institute, by respondent No. 1 vide Memo No. 1791-Agri-1(3)-89/9765, dated April 5, 1989. These powers were withdrawn on September 5, 1989 by Shri ML. Tyal, IAS, the then Director of Agriculture, Haryana (Respondent No. 3) and delegated the same to the Accounts Officer of Agriculture Training Institute, Jind.

No written statement has been filed by respondent No. 1. Written statement on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 has been filed by Shri S.D. Sharma, Joint Director Agriculture, Haryana. In the written statement, it is maintained that Rule 1.24 of the Punjab Financial Rules, Vol.I, "Head of Office" means a Government employee defined as a Disbursing Officer in Rule 2.16 of the Punjab Budget Manual or any other gazetted Government employee declared to be the Head of an office by the Competent authority. Heads of Department have been authorised to declare any office subordinate to him as head of office for the purposes of these rules. Respondent No. 2 in this capacity as Head of Department is entrusted with the responsibility of controlling the incuring of expenditure and/or the collection of revenue by the authorities sub-ordinate to the Department.

A brief reference to the relevant provisions in the Punjab Budget Manual (for short, the Manual) and the Punjab Financial Rules, Vol.I (for snort, the Rules) is necessary to appreciate the dispute raised. Under Rule 2.2 of the Manual, ''Administrative Department'' means a Department of the Punjab Government (Haryana Government in this case) other than the Finance Department. Rule 2.16 of the Manual defines a ''Disbursing Officer'' as under:-

"A Disbursing Officer is a Government servant who has been declared as such by the Administrative Department in consultation with Finance Department and who draws money for disbursement on bills/cheques from the Treasury."

A combined reading of Rules 2.2 and 2.16 of the Manual suggests that Disbursing Officer is a Government servant who has been declared as such by the Administrative Department concerned in consultation with the Department of Finance. Respondent No. 1 vide Memo No: 1791- Agri.I(3)-89/9765, dated April 5, 1989, declared that the Principal, Agriculture Training Institute, Jind shall be a Drawing and Disbursing Officer in respect of the staff of the Training Institute. Admittedly, the petitioner was posted as the Principal of that Institute and in his capacity as such he was the Drawing and Disbursing Officer in respect of the staff of the Institute. The Principal of the Institute was appointed as Drawing and Disbursing Officer by respondent No. 1 in conformity with Rules 2.2 and 2.16 of the Manual. Respondent No. 3 has supported his action on the strength of Rule 1.24 of the Rules, which reads as under:-

"Head of Office" means a Government employee defined as a Disbursing Officer in Rule 2.16 of the Punjab Budget Manual or any other Gazetted Government employee declared to be the head of an office by competent authority."

This rule is to be read in conjunction with Rule 1.21. Rule 1.21 defines "Government" and it means any Administrative Department of the Government of Punjab. A combined reading of these rules suggests that Head of Office means a Government employee defined as a Disbursing Officer in Rule 2.16 of the Manual. Rules 1.21 and 1.24 have to be read in conjunction with Rule 2.16 of the Manual. A Disbursing Officer is a Government employee who has been declared as such by the Administrative Department in consultation with the Finance Department and the Administrative Department means a Department of Punjab Government (Haryana Government in the instant case) other than the Finance Department. In the instant case, the Administrative Department will be the Secretary to Government, Haryana, Agriculture Department and not the Director Agriculture, Haryana. If Rule 1.24 of the Rules is read in conjuction with Rule 2.16 of the Manual, then the only competent authority to declare a Disbursing Officer was the Administrative Department, which means the Secretary to Government of the Department concerned and not any other officer. The action of Joint Director respondent No. 3 in withdrawing the powers of drawing and disbursing officer from the petitioner and delegating the same to the Accounts Officer of Agriculture Training Institute, Jind is not warranted by the Rules. Even otherwise, the action does not appear to be innocent and in the interest of administration,. The Accounts Officer to whom the powers of drawing and disbursing officer were delegated was under the administrative control of the Principal of the Training Institute and it was not bona fide to confer those powers on a subordinate officer after withdrawing it from a superior officer. Even otherwise, the powers of drawing and disbursing officer were conferred on the petitoner by respondent No. 1 . Respondent No. 3 could not withdraw those powers and delegate the same to a subordinate officer under the immediate control of the petitioner. As observed earlier, the orders does not appear to be in the interest of administration but for some extraneous consideration. I leave the matter at this stage. The order dated September 5, 1989 in which respondent No. 3 delegated the powers of drawing and disbursing officer to the Accounts Officer Agriculture Training Institute, Jind, is quashed being without any authority of law.

In C.W.P. No. 7981 of 1990, first grouse of the petitioner is that his pay in the new scale of Rs. 900-40-1100-EB-50-1500-60-1800 was intially fixed at Rs. 1560/- as on April 1, 1986 vide order dated September 17, 1986; but later on vide order dated February 13, 1990, his pay was reduced to Rs. 1500/-. The order dated February 13, 1990 was issued in supersession of the order dated September 17, 1986. It is pleaded in the petition that fixation of pay at a lower stage of Rs. 1500/- was ordered without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The reduction in pay was ordered because the petitioner was under suspension. But respondent No. 1 was fully aware when the order dated September 17, 1986 fixing the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 1560/- was passed that he was under suspension. If any reduction in the pay of the petitoner was to be made, that had to be done after affording an opportunity of hearing to him. Respondent No. 2 has violated the principle of natural justice.

For the reasons aforesaid, the order dated February 13, 1990 cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. As a consequence thereto, the order dated September 17, 1986 fixing the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 1,560/- is restored.

The other grouse of the petitioner is that in his capacity as Principal of the Agriculture Training Institute, Jind, he was entitled to the facilities of a Jeep. The same was withdrawn by respondent No. 2 vide order dated February 5, 1990 and transferred to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Faridabad. The order reads as under:-

"Sub: Transfer of Jeep No.HNX-1532.

On the subject aforementioned, you are directed to immediately transfer Jeep No. HNX-1532 to the Deputy Director, Faridabad and intimate this Directorate also.

Sd/-

Accounts Officer,

for the Director Agriculture, Haryana."

This order patently appears to be unjust. It is not indicated as to under what circumstances, respondent No. 2 thought it proper to order withdrawal of the jeep from the petitioner.

The sequence of events in these writ petitions leaves an impression that respondent No. 2 has adopted an attitude towards the petitioner, which smacks of vindictiveness. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on June 30, 1981; the enquiry officer was appointed on February 17, 1982, but no steps were taken by him to complete the enquiry. Respondent No. 1 vide letter dated August 28, 1989 asked the Enquiry Officer to start the enquiry at once and submit the report to the Government within one month, but to no avail. Even after the receipt of this letter, the Enquiry Officer did not proceed with the enquiry. Respondent No. 1 vide Memo dated April 5, 1989 declared the petitioner as the Drawing and Disbursing Officer for the staff of the Agriculture Training Institute, Jind when he was working as its Principal, but respondent No. 3 thought it convenient to rescind the order of respondent withdraw the powers of Drawing and Disbursing Officer from the petitoner and delegated the same to the Accounts Officer of the said Institute, which was not permissible. The salary of the petitioner was arbitrarily reduced and facility of Jeep which was accorded to hin in his capacity as the Principal of the Agriculture Training Institute was withdrawn from him abruptly. The sequence of events leaves an impression that respondent No. 2 has tried to humiliate the petitioner in more than one manner. I hope respondent No. 1 will personally look into the matter and will ensure that harassment and humiliation of the petitioner is stopped.

For the reasons recorded above, these writ petitions are disposed of as indicated above. In the circumstances of the case, I made no order as to costs.

Since the main writ petition has been disposed of, Civil Misc. No. 5856 of 1990 has been rendered infructuous and is dismissed as such.

Order accordingly