IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 6393 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 28.04.2009 Sh. Baljinder Singh Bhullar .... PETITIONER Versus Chairman, Punjab Backward Classes Land Development and Finance Corporation, Chandigarh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has filed the instant petition for quashing the order dated 1.6.2006 (Annexure P-9), passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4.3.2005 (Annexure P-7), passed by the punishing authority was partly accepted and the quantum of punishment was modified to the extent that the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service and the entire loss caused to the respondent Corporation along with future interest was ordered to be recovered from the petitioner. When the petitioner was working as Field Officer at Ferozepur, he was charge sheeted on 17.12.2002 under Regulation 43 of the Punjab CWP No. 6393 of 2009 -2- Backward Classes and Development and Finance Corporation (Staff) Regulation for four charges, the details of which were given in the charge sheet, copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-1. The petitioner did not file any reply to the charge sheet. A reminder was issued giving more time to the petitioner to file reply. Again the reply was not filed. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer was appointed. The petitioner participated in the enquiry. In support of the charges, the Presenting Officer examined three witnesses and placed on record the documents concerning the charges. The petitioner did not ask any question from witness No.1 and 2. He has asked only question from the third witness. Thereafter, the petitioner was given seven opportunities to produce witness in his favour and to submit proof and documents. In spite of those opportunities, on the last occasion, the petitioner remained absent. He neither examined any witness nor produced any document in his defence. After considering the material available on the enquiry file, the Enquiry Officer held that all the charges against the petitioner were proved. Copy of the enquiry report along with show cause notice was supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice. He also submitted supplementary reply to the show cause notice. The punishing authority, after considering the reply given by the petitioner, going through the evidence produced before the Enquiry Officer and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, agreed to the enquiry report and came to the conclusion that all the charges have been duly proved in the enquiry against the petitioner. CWP No. 6393 of 2009 -3- Thereafter, the punishing authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service and also ordered for recovery of the financial loss suffered by the respondent Corporation due to the negligence of the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal. In the appeal, though on merits, the petitioner could not point out any illegality or perversity in the enquiry proceedings or the order of punishment, but on his request that a lenient view may be taken, and on his statement that he has deposited Rs. 2 lacs and will further pay Rs. 4000/-, 5000/- every month till the final settlement of the loan/loss caused to the respondent Corporation, the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service was modified to the extent that the petitioner was ordered to be re-instated in service and the entire loss caused to the respondent Corporation along with future interest was to be recovered from the petitioner. The period of dismissal was ordered to be treated as period on leave without pay. It is pertinent to mention here that for almost three years, the petitioner did not challenge the aforesaid order dated 1.6.2006 and now he has filed the instant petition challenging the said order. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order as well as the enquiry report, submitted by the Enquiry Officer, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders. Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer or any defect or illegality committed in conducting the enquiry proceedings or following the CWP No. 6393 of 2009 -4- procedure before imposing the punishment. At every stage, the petitioner was offered full opportunity to defend his case, but he did not lead any evidence. Therefore, in my opinion, the Appellate Authority has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not able to point out any illegality in the order of punishment. However, in view of the statement made by the petitioner himself and in view of the fact that he had deposited Rs. 2 lacs and agreed to pay the remaining amount in monthly instalments, the order of dismissal from service was set aside and the petitioner was re- instated in service with the condition that he will pay the amount of loss as per his undertaking. For about three years, the petitioner remained satisfied with the said order and now at this belated stage, the instant petition has been filed, in which, in my opinion, no interference is required in view of the fact that the said order was passed on the statement of the petitioner himself for taking lenient view, even though the charges for imposing major penalty were proved against him. No merit. Dismissed. April 28, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE