IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.11491 of 2011 Date of Decision:6.7.2011 K.K. Sharma .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The present petition has been filed for quashing the disciplinary proceeding and dismissal order dated 23.6.2011. While challenging dismissal order dated 23.6.2011, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the same have been passed by respondent No.4 malafidely and without assigning any reasons. It has also been contended that the petitioner is whistle blower and is victim of harassment in the hand of some corrupt official. The petitioner had levelled allegations against Sh. J.C. Kinra and others in his affidavit dated 5.12.2009 (P-1). The said affidavit dated 5.12.2009 is addressed to respondent No.4 to be forwarded to the Chief Minister, Haryana. Further, the petitioner also moved to the police and filed his complaint on the same day i.e. 7.12.2009 regarding the threat/use of abusive language by Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, IAS. Copies of the said complaint have been forwarded to the Superintendent of Police and Director General of Police. It was C.W.P. No.11491 of 2011 -2- therefore submitted that it was on account of these facts that the petitioner has been charge sheeted and dismissed from service. Further, no proper opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Heard. Taking up the first argument that the dismissal order has been passed on account of mala fide as the petitioner had filed an affidavit dated 5.12.2009 bringing to the notice the various incidence of corruption by Shri J.C. Kinra (retired Chief Engineer), it may be seen that the statement of allegations against the petitioner read as under: “ Sh. Kanti Krishan Sharma, Xen (under suspension) while posted as Xen/planning in the office of Chief Engineer, HPGCL, Panchkula has committed the following acts of omission and commission unbecoming of an officer of the corporation:- 1. That he forcibly entered in the chamber of Managing Director, HPGCL, without an appointment by barging into his office at about 12.45 PM on dated 7.12.2009 and shouted at the top of his voice in the office of Managing Director, HPGCL, Panchkula. 2. That he misbehaved and acted in a very rude, grossly irresponsible, arrogant and uncivilized manner with the Managing Director, HPGCL and disrupted the proceeding of an official meeting. That he interrupted and refrained Govt. officers/officials working in public interest to perform their duties. 3. That he tried to tarnish the image of senior C.W.P. No.11491 of 2011 -3- Management by publicly using unprintable language against two formers Fcs/Power (Mr. R.N. Prashar and Mr. Ashok Lavasa) besides present Managing Director, HPGCL (Sh. Sanjeev Kaushal, IAS) and his predecessor Mrs. Jyoti Arora, IAS (now Managing Director, HVPNL. 4. That he tried to browbeat Managing Director, HPGCL and the Board of Directors in granting him promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer, by forcibly trying to deliver a false and malicious affidavit. That he forcibly tried to hand over copy of an affidavit which he claimed he would circulate to all concerned leveling falsed accusations of demand of illegal gratification from him by the MD (mentioning the name) through Sh. J.C. Kinra Chief of Operations, for promoting him to the post of Superintending Engineer. 5. That he threatened to level false allegations against the Managing Director, HPGCL and to make efforts to implicate the senior officers and especially Sh. J.C. Kinra in frivolous and false cases. While leaving MD, HPGCL chamber he asked for the permission of the Managing Director, HPGCL to meet the Chairman of HPGCL to hand over another copy to him. He barged into the office once again after snatching the application from Managing Director, HPGCL personal staff, in presence of Mr. C.W.P. No.11491 of 2011 -4- Sushil Bansal, Chief Engineer/DCRTPP, Yamuna Nagar. 6. That such a behavior is not only unbecoming of an officer but also ultra violation of provision of HSEB employees Conduct Regulation-1984 duly adopted by HPGCL. The above action on the part of Sh. Kanti Krishan Sharma, Xen (Under Suspension) constitute grave misconduct and warrant strict disciplinary action against him under Regulation-7, read with Regulation-4 or erstwhile HSEB Employees, Punishment and appeal, Regulation-1990 duly adopted by HPGCL.” The incident alleged in the statement of allegations submitted to the petitioner along with the charge sheet were duly noted by the Managing Director in his noting dated 7.12.2009 itself i.e. the date of the incident and placed on record by the petitioner himself which reads as under: “Sh. K.K. Sharma, Xen came in without an appointment by barging into my office at about 12:45 p.m. He handed a photocopy of an affidavit which he claimed he would circulate to all concerned leveling false accusations of demand of illegal gratification from him by the MD (mentioning the name)/Chairman HPGCL through Sh. J.C. Kinra, Chief of Operations for promoting him to the post of Superintending Engineer (Flag A). The intention expressed in so many words by C.W.P. No.11491 of 2011 -5- Mr. K.K. Sharma was that the Managing Director should commit that he would be promoted as Superintending Engineer forthwith, failing which he will circulate copies of the so-called affidavit to different authorities to mar the reputation of the officers concerned. I had patiently informed him that the decision of the Board of Directors has been referred to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana for opinion and that a decision can be taken only thereafter. However, M.r K.K. Sharma, launched into a monologue of bitter and unprintable words that he used against two former Fcs/Power (Mr. R.N. Prashar and Mr. Ashok Lavasa) and the present (Mr. Madhusudan Prasad) busies me and my predecessor Mrs Jyoti Arora. Citing the incident of 2007, he even threatened that he will level such false allegations against the Chairman as well as the Managing Director of HPGCL and he will make efforts to implicate all other officers and especially Mr. J.C. Kinra in frivolous and false cases. He was politely told by me to to leave the room. While leaving he strangely also asked for the permission of the Managing Director to meet the Chairman of HPGCL to hand over another copy to him (flag-B). Clearly understanding that he might create a similar unpleasant situation in the office of FC/Power (who is also Chairman PHGCL), he was asked to give an application in writing, to which he agreed. After C.W.P. No.11491 of 2011 -6- sometime, be barged into the office once again after snatching the application from my personal staff, when Mr. Sushil Bansal, Chief Engineer, DCRTPP Yamuna Nagar also happened to be in my room and literally forced the application into my hands demanding that I should sign the letter. I had to warn him to leave the room, failing which he would need to be proceed against for criminal trespass into my office. Thereafter, grumbling loudly he left the office. 3. The previous unsavoury history of Mr. K.K. Sharma is known to all the officers of the HPGCL. He was placed under suspension in the year 2006 when he misbehaved with the staff of then FC/Power (Sh. R.N. Prashar). The officer is known to be arrogant and violent in gesture of violence and threatening colleagues. It seems that he is under severe mental stress owing to some ailment, possible psychological. In fact the officer needs counseling and production before a Medical Board for suitable medical treatment. 4. However, keeping the fact that he misbehaved with the managing Director and his staff in full view of several people, in the interest of maintaining discipline in the office I order that Mr. K.K. Sharma be placed under suspension forthwith. He should be proceeded against for the imposition of major penalty. 5. For posterity I wish to recall that the contents of the copy of the so-called affidavit are false and C.W.P. No.11491 of 2011 -7- malicious and were designed only to browbeat me, the Chairman HPGCL and the Board of Directors into granting him promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. The effort to come with the copy of affidavit was only to blackmail us into seeking an illegal promotion, which could not have been granted to him in view of the orders of the Board of Directors. It is also a fact tht the orders of promotion of Superintending Engineer are issued after the prior approval of the Chiarman of HPGCL. The orders are also approved by the Board of Directors in each and every case. The allegation that the illegal gratification has been sought through Mr. J.C. Kinra files in the fact of the fact that Sh. J.C. Kinra has been abroad on leave since the right of 27/28 November 2009 and also the fact that Sh. J.C. Kinra does not handle any Administrative matter of the HPGCL for the last more that two years. It is also a fact that the copy of the affidavit itself reveals that he is referring to his attempt to falsely implicate Sh. J.C. Kinra in year 2007; an effort that was proved to be false. As far as the reference to the property held by the officers is concerned, I emphasis that I or my family members have no property whatsoever in Delhi, Faridabad or Jaipur as alleged and my statement of property return is filed religiously during the first week of January of every year as required under the relevant Rules. It is another matter that the HPGCL at that time C.W.P. No.11491 of 2011 -8- did not deem it fit to proceed against him for that malicious act against Sh. J.C. Kinra, even though the fact was noted at the highest level of HPGCL. 6. Necessary orders be issued and thereafter the file submitted for the information of FC/Power and Chairman HPGCL for his information, since the matter involves the Chairman HPGCL and the Board of Directors as well. He may be requested to bring the facts of the matter to the notice of the Chief Secretary to Government (Incharge of Vigilance) as well, since Sh. K.K. Sharma is habitual of making such malicious charges against officers.” It is apparent from the above that the affidavit/complaint filed by the petitioner and the noting of the behavior and conduct of the petitioner while handing over the said affidavit to respondent No.4 are of the same date. Thus, the statement of allegations and the charges framed against the petitioner are not an after thought. A perusal of the statement of allegations shows that they are qua his behavior and conduct which was duly noticed by the Managing Director in his noting dated 7.12.2009 itself. In fact, a perusal of the contents of the affidavit leaves one to wonder whether it was not an outcome of frustration and vengeance as he was not promoted. Moreover, it is evident from the impugned order that proper inquiry was held. All the requisite documents were supplied to the petitioner. Reply was sought. Reply was filed. Inquiry officer was appointed to look into the charges independently. Charges 1 to 6 were found to be proved. Since, the petitioner started levelling C.W.P. No.11491 of 2011 -9- allegations against the Chairman, the matter was put up before the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors accepted the report of the inquiry officer and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The inquiry report was also supplied. The petitioner was given proper opportunity to explain his position. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice. Personal hearing was also granted but he did not appear before the Board of Directors inspite of notice through registered A.D. and telephonic message. The Board of Directors after perusing the reply, confirmed the punishment proposed in the show cause notice, who also noted that the petitioner was habitual of using offensive language against anyone and also a habitual complainant. Thus, it cannot be said that the disciplinary proceedings were mala fide or the inquiry was improper in any manner or that no opportunity was given to the petitioner or that there was any violation of natural justice. No other ground was raised. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 6.7.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE