IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP.NO.1577 of 2006 DATE OF ORDER: 27.2.2008 Chander Mohan Gupta ....Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and Others .....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. J.K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the respondents. JASBIR SINGH,J (ORAL) Petitioner, a Junior Engineer in the Irrigation Department of Haryana, has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash charge sheet dated 13.11.1995 (P.4). Further prayer is to quash order dated 5.8.2003 (P.11), vide which the legal notice has been decided and prayer of the petitioner to release the requisite service benefits, in his favour, was declined. It is further prayed that the authorities be directed to grant him the benefit of annual grade increments during the period from 1991 to 1995 and further to fix pay of the petitioner by giving the revised pay scale w.e.f 1.1.1996 with all subsequent benefits. In response to the notice issued by this Court, reply has been filed, wherein it has been stated that the inquiry proceedings initiated in 1995 are still pending against the petitioner and on account of that, benefits claimed by him could not be released in his favour. Counsel for the parties heard. It is apparent from the records that vide order dated 13.11.1995 (P.4), following statement of charges was served upon the petitioner: “1. That he intentionally concealed the facts of the purchasing agriculture land near Garaunda during 1989. Similarly he also did not obtain permission from the department for running & poultry farm in the name of his wife. Thus, he had violated the provisions of Govt Employee Conduct Rules. 2. That the House No.975 New Housing Board, Karnal was allotted to his wife as stated by him and he further stated the sale price of it is house as per agreement between him and Sh. Som CWP.NO.1577 of 2006 #2# Parkash s/o Sh. Sunder Mal for Rs.44500/- dated 30.3.1992 was made which shows that the purchase was done by him but shown in the name of his wife so as to conceal the transactions having been made by him without permission of the department. He had also shown the value of the property as Rs.44500/- in the agreement which is also less than the market price of the property during 1992. Thus, he contravened the provisions of rules & instructions. 3. That the value of agriculture land, poultry farm and house No.975 acquiring by Sh. Chander Mohan Gupta in his name of his wife is disproportionate to the known source of income. In other words, he has a massed wealthy by wrongful means. 4. That he had cheated the department by financing a false certificate by passing section 1 & B AMIE in June, 1988 whereas per mark sheet of his Roll No.43022 he was declared fail in the examination in AMIEF during December, 1987 and June 1988.” Notice was issued to the petitioner to reply, to the above said charges. He submitted his reply dated 19.4.2006. Thereafter, as per admitted position, inquiry officer was appointed, who had gone into the allegations levelled against the petitioner, recorded evidence of both the parties and submitted his inquiry report on 13.2.2001. The punishing authority did not agree with the findings given by the inquiry officer on charge No.4, which was with regard to authenticity or otherwise of the AMIE degree produced by the petitioner to get some benefits as per norms. However, as per admitted position, petitioner was not promoted to next higher post of SDO on the basis of the above said degree produced by him. It is also an admitted position that a question was raised by the competent authority with regard to authenticity of AMIE degree produced by many of its officers and accordingly matter was referred to the Vigilance Department, State of Haryana for investigation. FIR was also recorded in that regard on 17.11.1995 at Police Station, Karnal. As per report submitted on 1.5.1997 by the Director, Vigilance Bureau of State of Haryana, none of the charges was proved either against the petitioner or any other employee. A cancellation report was submitted by the investigating officer and in view of that report, FIR was cancelled. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner was put under suspension on 20.4.1995. Thereafter, he was reinstated in service on 13.12.2001 and now he is in service. When this CWP.NO.1577 of 2006 #3# matter came up for hearing before us on 4.2.2008, following order was passed by this Court: “Petitioner was put under suspension in the year 1995 on account of some acts of omission and commission committed by him. Article of charges was served upon him on November 13, 1995 (Annexure P.4). Thereafter, he was reinstated on December 13, 2001. It is coming out from document Annexure P.11 that the Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner with regard to all the charges, levelled against him. The punishing authority did not agree with the Enquiry Officer's findings with regard to one charge, i.e validity or otherwise of AMIE degree, produced by the petitioner to get service. The matter is pending since then. In order Annexure P.11, it has been said that to take final decision, original of the document has been demanded from the police department and letter has also been written to the institution, from where the petitioner got the degree in dispute. We feel that in this case, the department has shown a lethargic attitude. Matter is pending for the last more than 12 years. It appears that the poor employee is being harassed unnecessarily without any justification. It is also apparent from the records that even enquiry report and disagreement note were not supplied to the petitioner. It is also clear from the records that with regard to validity or otherwise of the degree in question, one FIR was registered against the petitioner. Enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Department, in which, it was held that the degree in question is valid. A detailed report has been placed on record in the shape of document Annexure P.17. It is also coming out from the records that the investigating agency has made a request for cancellation of that FIR. In view of facts, mentioned above, we intend to know as to what is the hitch in finalizing the departmental/disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. We adjourn this case to February 27, 2008 and direct Engineer in Chief, Irrigation Department, Haryana, to come present in Court along with records of this case to show us reasons as to why department has taken more than 12 years to finalize the enquiry.” In response to the directions issued by us, Chief Engineer along with other employees is present in the Court. They have failed to show as CWP.NO.1577 of 2006 #4# to what is the reason, on the basis of which, requisite benefits have been declined to the petitioner. Once, he has been exonerated by the Vigilance Department, there is no justification to continue, the sword of disciplinary action hanging over his head. In the report, submitted by the Director, Vigilance Bureau, it is specifically mentioned that no case was found against the petitioner along with many other employees and further it has been specifically stated that the State Government has given benefits to some of its employees, on the basis of the degree of AMIE, obtained by those employees from that very Institution from which the petitioner has obtained his degree. If that is so, we feel that there is no justification with the competent authority to deny the service benefits to the petitioner. It has been stated by Mr. Rathee that the requisite relief cannot be given to the petitioner because authenticity of his AMIE degree is under investigation and letter has been written to the police officials on 18.6.2003 to summon his original degree and further that letter has also been written to the University concerned to verify authenticity of the degree produced by the petitioner. It is very strange and surprising that even after lapse of about five years, authorities have failed to requisition some record from another department of the State. It appears that poor employee is being harassed unnecessarily without any justification. In view of the above facts, we allow this writ petition and quash impugned orders Annexures P.4 and P.11 and direct that requisite service benefits be granted to the petitioner forthwith within a period of three weeks along with interest @ 8% (simple) from the date when the amount became due till its realisation. ( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE February 27, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE