Rajbir Singh vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 08.05.2012 (Annexure P-9), whereby, the petitioner, who was working on the post of District Revenue Officer, Patiala (under transfer to Barnala) has been placed under suspension. Also under challenge is the order dated 22.06.2012 (Annexure P-12) passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab, whereby, his claim for reinstatement at this stage has been rejected. The petitioner had earlier preferred CWP No. 9038 of 2012 before this Court impugning his order of suspension dated 08.05.2012 and the same was disposed of on 15.05.2012 in terms of granting liberty to the petitioner to move a representation as regards his reinstatement and the same had been directed to be considered and decided within a period of 30 days. It was in deference to such directions that the impugned order dated 22.06.2012 (Annexure P-12) has been passed.

A perusal of the impugned order itself would reveal that there are certain allegations pertaining to the registry of land measuring 6000 square yards situated at Patiala. Such land is purported to be government land and not belonging to any private owner. The registry pertaining to such land was cancelled by the then Deputy Commissioner on 22.03.2011 but lateron the document/Wasika was again presented before the Sub Registrar, Patiala through attorney of an alleged private owner, even though, it is observed that such power of attorney stood already cancelled. At that point of time, the petitioner was posted as District Revenue Officer, Patiala and it is stated that the file has been dealt by him. The petitioner in his representation filed before the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab has clearly taken a stand that he had not perused the case and he was only acting as a Transmitting Officer and as such, he has no involvement in such matter. Be that as it may, the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, while declining the prayer of the petitioner for reinstatement has opined that the charges are of serious nature and there is a possibility that the government treasury has suffered a loss on account of his alleged negligence and carelessness. Even a preliminary enquiry has been got conducted by the Commissioner Patiala Division whereby prima facie charges against the petitioner stand established. Accordingly, it has been observed that a regular departmental enquiry is under contemplation against the petitioner.

In the light of such factual background, I am not inclined to interfere in an order of suspension as also an order passed by the Competent Authority declining the prayer of the petitioner seeking reinstatement.

At this stage, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to memo dated 29.09.2011 (Annexure P-13) to submit that the petitioner is at Sr. No. 1 in the list of officers in the revenue establishment and his right of consideration for nomination to PCS (Executive Branch) pertaining to Register A-I would be clearly prejudiced only on account of his having been placed under suspension and the respondent/authorities dragging their feet on the issue inasmuch as till date no charge sheet having been served. As such, for the reasons recorded above while declining to interfere in the impugned orders placing the petitioner under suspension as also declining his request for reinstatement, directions are issued to the respondent/authorities to conclude the departmental proceedings against the petitioner expeditiously and in any case within a period of six months. Further the respondent/authorities may consider the feasibility as regards consideration of claim of the petitioner for nomination to the PCS (Executive Branch) under Register A-I in terms of resorting to the seal cover procedure.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.