CWP No. 16640 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 16640 of 2009 Date of decision : 20.07.2011 Gurpal Singh ......Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Birinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Addl.A.G. Punjab **** RITU BAHRI, J. The petitioner has sought quashing of the appellate order dated 16.03.2009 (Annexure P-10) passed by Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala (respondent No. 2) dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.05.2005 (Annexure P-5) of dismissal of the petitioner, passed by District Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab (respondent No. 3) and further quashing of show cause notice dated 04.01.2005, inquiry report dated 31.08.2004 of Sh. Sandeep Hans, P.C.S, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib (respondent No. 6), inquiry report No. 2056/Steno dated nil of Ravinder Kumar, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khamano, respondent No. 5 and preliminary inquiry report dated 29.06.2000 passed by District Revenue Officer, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab (respondent No. 7). The petitioner was appointed as Patwari on 14.08.1992 by CWP No. 16640 of 2009 -2- respondent No. 3 in the Revenue Department of Punjab. While posted at Nasrali Circle, District Fatehgarh Sahib, petitioner received an application for mutation with regard to the land of one Nahar Singh resident of Village Jasrran who had died on 13.10.1999. After preparing the report, he entered the mutation No. 14123 dated 11.11.1999 and forwarded the same for further action of Kanungo and Naib-Tehsildar. Meanwhile, the petitioner was transferred to village Saimpla Saimpli, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab. Thereafter, a complaint/application dated 07.06.2000 (Annexure P-1) was made by one Harbans Singh son of Harichand Singh resident of village Jasrran, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib against the petitioner about taking of Rs. 10000/- as fee for the Mutation and for not getting the mutation sanctioned. The petitioner was informed on 21.06.2000 to meet the District Revenue Office, Fatehgarh Sahib (respondent No. 7). On receipt of the said message, the petitioner reached the office of respondent No. 7 where the complainant was present with two other persons namely Sabar and Gurcharan Singh, Namberdar. Respondent No. 7 directed the petitioner to cross-examine Harbans Singh-complainant, Sabar and Gurcharabn Singh, Namberdar. During cross-examination ,Sabar admitted that he never accompanied Harbans Singh (complainant) at the time of giving money and it was one Piara Singh who had demanded the alleged fee of Rs. 10,000/- for mutation. Similarly, Gurcharan Singh who is father-in-law of Harbans Singh (complainant) also admitted that no money was given in his presence. On 29.06.2000, respondent No. 7 submitted his report to respondent No. 3. As per this report, it was not proved that petitioner had taken any money. On CWP No. 16640 of 2009 -3- 30.07.2000 (Anneuxre P-2), the complainant gave in writing to respondent No. 3 stating therein that he had submitted the application against the petitioner due to misunderstanding whereas he had given money to some one else and not to the petitioner. The complainant has further stated that the money has been returned back and he does not want to take any action on his application. A charge-sheet was framed on 18.09.2000 but about 10 months therefrom, only a notice along with a notice of charge dated 18.09.2000 was served upon the petitioner on 16.07.2001 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner submitted his written reply to the charge sheet on 24.07.2001. Thereafter, on 11.09.2001 a compromise statement was recorded between the petitioner and the complainant. The complainant was called again by respondent No. 3 on 06.10.2001 to file an affidavit that he had entered into compromise with the petitioner and wanted no action on his application. On 24.07.2001, Gurdeep Singh, S.D.M Khamano, respondent No. 4 was appointed as Inquiry Officer to inquire the charge against the petitioner. On 28.02.2003, Sh. Ravinder Kumar, P.C.S, S.D.M , Khamano, respondent No. 5 was appointed as second inquiry officer. The second Inquiry Officer recommended the Punishing Authority to give a warning to the petitioner before dismissing the complaint dated 07.06.2000. On 02.01.2004, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Punishing Authority and attached to Sadar Office, Fatehgarh Sahib. After receiving the inquiry report No. 2056/Steno dated Nil from the Second Inquiry Officer (respondent No. 5), respondent No. 3 declared the same as vague and incomplete and vide order dated 29.04.2004 order a de novo inquiry and CWP No. 16640 of 2009 -4- appointed Sh. Sandeep Hans, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amloh, respondent No. 6 as the Third Inquiry Officer to re-inquire the same charge against the petitioner. Respondent No. 6 submitted his ex parte inquiry report to the Punishing Authoritys, who issued a show cause notice dated 04.01.2005 and the petitioner was dismissed form service on 17.05.2005. Mr. Birinder Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to explain the delay and has argued that after the ex parte dismissal order, petitioner filed an appeal before Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala challenging the entire departmental proceedings and ex parte dismissal of the petitioner from service. On 26.02.2009, the Punishing Authority in his written statement admitted that the relevant documents including the preliminary inquiry report dated 29.06.2000 passed by respondent No. 7, first inquiry report dated nil passed by respondent No. 5, second inquiry report dated 31.08.2004 passed by respondent No. 6 were not supplied to the petitioner and that ex- parte inquiry proceedings by respondent No. 6 were held and ex parte dismissal order dated 17.05.2005 by respondent No. 3 have been passed. Despite the above mentioned admissions made by the Punishing Authority, the Appellate Authority without hearing the petitioner, dismissed the appeal dated 24.07.2008 filed by the petitioner by a non speaking order dated 16.03.2009 (Annexure P- 10). Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that while disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer, the District Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib could not direct the fresh inquiry by appointing a new Inquiry CWP No. 16640 of 2009 -5- officer, Sh. Sandeep Hans, P.C.S, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib (respondent No. 6). He has referred to a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Karnail Singh vs. The State of Punjab and others, 1992(1), RSJ 231 to contend that if the Punishing Authority is not agreeing with the Inquiry Officer he is to remit the case to the same Inquiry Officer for further Inquiry and that too after recording reasons and a fresh inquiry by a new officer could not be ordered by the District Collector. Mr. Puneet Gupta, Addl.A.G. Punjab, has vehemently argued that petitioner has been convicted for rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- by learned District & Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib on 15.12.2009 (Annexure R-1). The petitioner has been convicted for various criminal offences in a case under Section 420, 467, 468, 477, 255, 260 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Sirhind vide FIR No. 5 dated 04.01.2004 for his outlandish act of selling of Government Rest House at Fatehgarh Sahib. The petitioner is also facing trial in FIR No. 2 dated 03.01.2004, under Sections 420, 506, 120-B IPC vide, registered at Police Station Mandi, Gobindgarh. Two other criminal cases are also pending against him. Learned State counsel has further argued that the allegation of the petitioner that District Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib had sought Rs. 3 lacs as illegal gratification, is an afterthought, malicious, false and slanderous. On the complaint made by Harbans Singh son of Harichand Singh resident of village Jasrran, Tehsil Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib on 08.06.2000, the inquiry was marked to the District Revenue Officer by the then Deputy Commissioner CWP No. 16640 of 2009 -6- Fatehgarh Sahib. During enquiry, a prima facie case was made out and as a result, charge sheet No. 2242/SK dated 18.09.2000 was served upon the petitioner. He filed reply dated 24.07.2001, which was found unsatisfactory, therefore, a regular inquiry was ordered by District collector, Fatehgarh Sahib vide office order No. 60/SK dated 28.10.2002. Gurdeep Singh, PCS, SDM, Khamano was appointed as Enquiry Officer and the same was then entrusted to Sh. Ravinder Kumar who joined in place of Gurdeep Singh who was posted out of district. Ravinder Kumar in his enquiry conveyed that the complainant was not inclined to depose against the petitioner/delinquent official as a compromise had been arrived between them. Affidavit of the complainant was sent along with the report. Not agreeing with the Inquiry Officer, District Collector appointed Sandeep Hans, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amloh, respondent No. 6 as Inquiry Officer to hold a fresh inquiry vide his order dated 29.04.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner was found guilty and charges were framed and after following due procedure, he was dismissed from service on 17.05.2005. Heard learned counsel for the parties. A short point which arises for consideration is that after making a complaint, if a compromise is arrived at between the delinquent official and the complainant whether the Punishing Authority can ignore the said compromise of the parties and charge the petitioner/delinquent official. In the present case, the compromise has been effected between the parties and the Inquiry Officer had suggested that the complaint has given an affidavit that he does not want to take any action in his application. Rule 9 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules CWP No. 16640 of 2009 -7- clearly says as under:- “9. Action on the inquiry report: - (i) The Punishing authority if it is not itself the inquiring authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of rule 8, as far as may be. (2) The punishing authority shall, if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record, its reasons for each agreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose. (3) If the punishing authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 5 should be imposed on the Government employee, it shall notwithstanding anything contained in rule 10, make an order imposing such penalty.” The alleged report not to proceed with the enquiry on account of compromise and could not be treated as enquiry report as contemplated under Rule 9. No evidence was led to prove the charge against the petitioner/delinquent official. It was the complainant who had refused to go ahead with his complaint. The applicability of rule 9 in the present case is not made out and the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case as the punishing authority had CWP No. 16640 of 2009 -8- not set aside any enquiry report but had proceeded to have a fresh enquiry as it had not accepted the compromise. In the enquiry conducted by respondent No. 6, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and his reply was sought and he was found guilty. A complaint/application dated 07.06.2000 (Annexure P-1) was made against the petitioner for taking Rs. 10000/- as fee for the sanction of mutation in favour of Jagit Singh (minor). After receiving Rs. 10,000/-, the petitioner had not sanctioned the mutation. Subsequently the complainant had got his money back and did not want to pursue any action. The petitioner was charge sheeted. Threafter, Ravinder Kumar, P.C.S, S.D.M , Khamano, respondent No. 5 was appointed as second inquiry officer who recommended the Punishing Authority to give a warning to the petitioner before dismissing the complaint. The Punishing Authority suspended the petitioner on 02.01.2004. Sh. Sandeep Hans, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Amloh, respondent No. 6 was then appointed as the Third Inquiry Officer to re-inquire. The petitioner did not join the enquiry, so respondent No. 6 submitted his ex parte inquiry report to the Punishing Authority, who issued a show cause notice dated 04.01.2005 and the petitioner was dismissed form service on 17.05.2005. In the inquiry, it was found that the allegation of the petitioner that the District Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib had sought Rs. 3 lacs is illegal gratification, is an afterthought, malicious, false and slanderous. In the reply filed by the State,the petitioner has been convicted for various sentences with a maximum rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- Two case CWP No. 16640 of 2009 -9- are also pending against him. There is no infirmity in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner. The order dated 16.03.2009 (Annexure P-10) passed by Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala (respondent No. 2) dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 17.05.2005 (Annexure P-5) of dismissal of the petitioner, passed by District Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab (respondent No. 3) are validly passed. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. July 20, 2011 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE