High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/6754/2018allowed

Ajit Singh Salaria v. State Of Punjab And ORS

2023-02-14Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri10 pages

!"#$# %&'

(

)& * + )' , , ,

" # $% , , - ' ./01 The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure P-8), enquiry report dated 02.02.2015 (Annexure P-12) and also the impugned order dated 02.02.2018 (Annexure P-14) whereby a cut of 20% in the pension of the petitioner has been ordered to be imposed for a period of five years.

The brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner was working as Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurdaspur and he was appointed as such from 01.10.2008 and thereafter for different dates he had worked there as a Deputy Registrar. There was one person namely Shri S.K.

Pant who was working as Assistant Manager in the Hindu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Pathankot (respondent No.6) and he had been dismissed by the bank. Thereafter, he had challenged his dismissal before the Appellate Authorities and his appeal was dismissed and then he even filed a writ petition before this Court which was also dismissed. After that, he assailed the judgment of this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and SLP was also dismissed. The aforesaid facts with regard to the attaining of finality of the dismissal orders of the aforesaid S.K. Pant is not in dispute in the present case. The aforesaid SLP was dismissed in the year 2008. After the dismissal of SLP and after the order of dismissal had attained finality, the aforesaid Shri S.K.

Pant moved an application to the then Co-operation Minister, Punjab as a mercy appeal, which was marked to the then Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurdaspur whose name was Shri Kulwant Singh Bath. The aforesaid Deputy Registrar re-enquired the matter on the basis of marking made to him by the then Co-operation Minister, Punjab and on the basis of the re-enquiry, he came to the conclusion that the punishment order against the aforesaid S.K. Pant was erroneous and not correct on the ground that the punishment authority was the Board of Directors whereas qua him the punishment order has been passed by different authorities. The aforesaid Shri Kulwant Singh Bath, the then Deputy Registrar wrote a letter to the then Co-operation Minister, Punjab vide Annexure P-1 dated 23.04.

2008 in which it was so stated that he has re-enquired the matter on the basis of enquiry conducted by him and he came to the conclusion that the order of punishment against the aforesaid S.K. Pant was not correct.

( At the time when the aforesaid Annexure P-1 dated 23.04.2008, the letter was issued, the petitioner was nowhere in the picture and thereafter he joined as a Deputy Registrar, Gurdaspur on 01.10.2008, i.e. after a period of about 5-6 months. It was thereafter that when he joined as Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurdaspur that the aforesaid S.K. Pant again pressed upon that directions be issued to the Board of Directors of the bank to reinstate him on the basis of earlier re-enquiry conducted by the then Deputy Registrar. Since the petitioner had now joined as a Deputy Registrar, he on the basis of the aforesaid request/representation of Shri S.K. Pant wrote a letter to the bank vide Annexure P-2 on 11.05.

2011 by referring to the earlier proceedings being conducted by the Deputy Registrar wherein reference was made to the aforesaid by stating that vide earlier letter dated 23.04.2008 (Annexure P-1) the earlier Deputy Registrar has stated that the action taken against the aforesaid Shri S.K. Pant was wrong and against the rules and that the bank has not intimated the compliance of the enquiry report and therefore on the basis of the earlier re-enquiry conducted and the recommendation made by the Deputy Registrar, he directed the bank to take action for reinstatement of the aforesaid S.K. Pant as Assistant Manager in the bank. There was a time gap of more than three years in the letter dated 23.04.2008 (Annexure P-1) and letter dated 11.05.2011 (Annexure P-2).

However, the bank took up the matter before its Board of Directors and vide Annexure P-3 dated 22.09.2011 wrote a letter to the Deputy Registrar who is the present petitioner that the aforesaid S.K. Pant cannot be employed because after his dismissal, his order of dismissal had attained finality till the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. On the receipt of the aforesaid letter which is dated 22.09.

immediately wrote a letter to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab vide Annexure P-4 on 12.10.2011 by giving the entire factual position in which it was stated that in view of the factual position stated by the Board of Directors, the aforesaid employee (S.K. Pant) cannot be taken back in the bank. Thereafter, again after a few days, i.e. on 24.10.2011 (Annexure P-5), he again wrote a letter to the Registrar seeking stay on the instructions issued by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies in case of his reinstatement by stating that earlier the Deputy Registrar had come to the conclusion that the aforesaid S.K. Pant was required to be reinstated but in view of the factual position pertaining to his dismissal order which had attained finality till Supreme Court of India, he cannot be taken back.

Thereafter, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation of 31.12.2011. After his superannuation, he was chargesheeted on 28.02.2014 (Annexure P-8) on the ground that he had misconducted and concealed the facts at the time of directing the reinstatement of the aforesaid S.K. Pant.

Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and vide enquiry report (Annexure P-12), the allegations against the petitioner were proved and thereafter vide Annexure P-14 the Additional Chief Secretary, Cooperation, Punjab passed an order of punishment against the petitioner whereby a cut of 20% for a period of five years was imposed against the petitioner on his pension. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the aforesaid impugned order dated 02.02.2018 (Annexure P-14) as well as charge-sheet dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure P-8) and enquiry report dated 02.02.2015 (Annexure P-12).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case of total high handedness against the petitioner. He submitted that the facts of the case speak for themselves. At the time when Annexure P-1 dated 23.04.2008 was issued by the Deputy Registrar to the Minister of Department of Cooperation on the basis of mercy plea by S.K. Pant, the petitioner was not even posted at that point of time as a Deputy Registrar and one Kulwant Singh Bath was the Deputy Registrar who issued the aforesaid letter and in that letter it has been so stated that he has conducted the re-enquiry and he has found that the order of dismissal was incorrect, but there was no reference to the earlier proceedings pertaining to the dismissal of the aforesaid S.K. Pant which attained finality till the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The petitioner thereafter joined as a Deputy Registrar on 01.10.2008 and he was not even aware of the aforesaid position especially in view of the fact that Annexure P-1 did not refer anything with regard to the earlier litigation pertaining to dismissal of S.K. Pant and even vide Annexure P-2, he only reiterated what was done by the earlier Deputy Registrar and nothing new had been done by the petitioner and that was only in exercise of its powers in official capacity as Deputy Registrar, but nothing new was done by him. Thereafter, when Annexure P-3 was received by him from the bank, he immediately informed the Registrar not only once but twice that the aforesaid S.K.

Pant cannot be re-employed in view of the earlier litigation which attained finality till Supreme Court of India and rather the petitioner has exercised his due diligence and acted bonafide.

matter after the dismissal of S.K.Pant which attained finality till Supreme Court and he concealed the facts not only from the higher authorities but also from the Minister but he was never charge-sheeted. He submitted that on the top of it surprisingly the aforesaid S.K. Pant who was dismissed and regarding whom the controversy had arisen died in the year 2012 and immediately his son was granted compassionate appointment by the bank and in this entire scenario, the petitioner who was not at fault at all as stated above, has been charge-sheeted after three years of his superannuation and thereafter the order of punishment of 20% cut for five years in the pension of the petitioner has been passed on 02.02.2018 vide Annexure P-14.

He further submitted that a perusal of the enquiry report would show that primarily the reason as to why it has been so observed by the Enquiry Officer that the charges have been proved that when the Joint Registrar had asked clarification from the petitioner he did not give para-wise reply to him and therefore on the basis of the presumption that the petitioner was in the knowledge of the earlier litigation of aforesaid S.K. Pant, he came to the conclusion that the charges stood proved. He submitted that the entire enquiry report is based upon conjectures and surmises and totally perverse and based upon presumption.

" #

& &

' &

(

& ! " ) &

( &

# !

& *

! !

+ (

" ! , - ./ #)

"0 "

& # .1 #

& *

&.2 # ! & !

3 )4

& $&

! % $

" !

. ! &

& (

&54 6557 $&

! %

& ( ) & 3 )6 ! &

6544

" "

3 ! !! &

9 " !

& &

(

# !

3 ) : );

( !

& !

9 !

" 3 )< !

! . !

)

!!& ! " (

! 8 )' &!

! "&

) (

' &

& =' &+! !

& !! 8

' &

& =' &+!

! & >

(

2 8 #

=' & +!

& !!

& ! '!

& =' &+!

' & !

& !

' &

!& ! & ! &

& & !

8 $&

3 )4

& )'

(

& ! & ! &

$ !

! !65? ! *

& ! ! ! ! # !! 8 !!

) 67 654:@3 )7A' & 56 654;@3 )46A 56 @3 )4:A

! ! 3 )4: &'

! ! ! 3 )4:

B-?

& 8

., , 1 !3/4/5 -

( 9 " CD, 9 CD,