C.W.P. No. 6949 of 1993 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6949 of 1993 Date of Decision: July 21, 2010 P.S. Girn .......................................................................... Petitioner versus The State of Punjab ...................................................... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Ashutosh Mohunta Present: Mr. Vikas Awasthy, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Punjab. ... ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. (Oral) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the disciplinary proceedings as well as the charge-sheet (Annexure P2), summary of allegations (Annexure P3) and the order dated 11.1.1993 (Annexure P5). The petitioner was appointed as Sub-Divisional Engineer in the Public Health Department in State of Punjab. He was sent on deputation as Sub-Divisional Engineer in the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board, Sub-Division No.7, Ludhiana, in the year 1983. While the petitioner was posted at Ludhiana, an agreement was executed between the Executive Engineer, Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Division No.3, Ludhiana and Shri Ravinder Kumar, Contractor, for the work of providing provisional W/s Mains and sub-mains in Zone No.32-33, New Shivpuri Area, Ludhiana. As C.W.P. No. 6949 of 1993 [ 2 ] per the contract, the material for the work was to be provided by the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board. This work fell under the area of the Sub-Division of the petitioner and the said work was to be completed by 14.3.1984. The contractor undertook the work awarded to him but could not complete the same by the due date. The petitioner was transferred back to his parent department on 30.4.1985. Subsequently, it transpired that the petitioner had issued excess material to the contractor. Accordingly, charge- sheet and summary of allegations were issued to him vide Annexures P2 and P3 and disciplinary proceedings started against him. The petitioner has challenged the disciplinary proceedings and has prayed for quashing of the charge-sheet and other connected summary of allegations by filing this writ petition. While issuing notice of motion, this Court had restrained the respondents from passing final order of punishment. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was transferred back to the parent Department on 30.4.1985 and while relieving the office he had handed over the status of the entire work assigned to him including the work allotted to Shri Ravinder Kumar, Contractor. Learned counsel submits that as the Contractor had not completed the work, on due date, therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any lapse in providing excess of material because the contractor had abandoned the work. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that whatever loss has allegedly been caused by the petitioner has already been recovered in the arbitration proceedings and, hence, the State has not suffered any loss. It has further been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that there is an inordinate delay in issuing the charge-sheet as well as in C.W.P. No. 6949 of 1993 [ 3 ] initiating the enquiry as the petitioner was sent back to his parent department on 30.4.1985 whereas the charge-sheet was issued to him in April 1989 and the Inquiry Officer was appointed in the year 1993. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been averred that the work allotted to the contractor Ravinder Kumar was to be completed by 14.3.1984. Despite this date having lapsed and the work having not been completed, the petitioner continued to issue excess material to the contractor, although the contractor had stopped working and was not completing the work allotted to him. Therefore, the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner on account of the alleged issue of supplying the material in excess to the contractor, and the same is liable to be enquired into and the petitioner be directed to face the disciplinary proceedings. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that there has been no delay in initiating action against the petitioner as the issuance of excess material by the petitioner to the contractor came to light on 31.3.1986 when the final bill of the contractor was passed and the loss was detected. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter the arbitration proceedings commenced and the award was passed in favour of the State Government in February 1989 and after a few months the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. I have heard the counsel for the parties at length. A perusal of the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner shows that the petitioner had issued excess material to Ravinder Kumar, Contractor, despite the fact that he had failed to complete the contract by the stipulated date which was 14.3.1984. Once the aforementioned date for completing the contract had elapsed, thereafter it was incumbent for the petitioner to ensure C.W.P. No. 6949 of 1993 [ 4 ] that no excess material is issued till the contractor re-starts the work. In the present case, the contractor had stopped work and had not completed his contract. Therefore, the petitioner was required to assess the actual quantity of material required for the work after survey of the site. The petitioner obviously failed to discharge his duties and kept supplying excess material although the contractor had stopped working. Apart from the above, even if an award has been passed in favour of the State with regard to the recovery of losses suffered from the contractor, still the petitioner cannot absolve himself from the lapses committed by him. The contention of the petitioner that there is an inordinate delay in issuance of the charge-sheet is also without merit because the misconduct came to light when the final bill of the contractor was passed in 1986 and thereafter the arbitration proceedings had commenced and award was passed in favour of the State in February 1989. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner in April 1989 and, hence there has been no delay in issuance of the charge-sheet to the petitioner or in the appointment of the Inquiry Officer. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the disciplinary proceedings as well as the charge-sheet (Annexure P2), the summary of allegations (Annexure P3) and the order dated 11.1.1993 (Annexure P5) cannot be quashed. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. ( ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA ) 21.7.2010 JUDGE rupi