CWP NO.16378 OF 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 10.2.2009 Mohd.Farooq ...Petitioner VERSUS Punjab Wakf Board & Another …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.B.S.Bedi, Advocate for petitioner Mr.Tushar Sharma, Advocate for respondents Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Vide order dated 2.8.2007 (Annexure P-12), the Chairperson of the Punjab Wakf Board, Chandigarh has imposed a penalty of stoppage of two annual increments of the petitioner on permanent basis from the date of issuance of the charge-sheet. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of punishment as also the charge-sheet (Annexure P-1) and the enquiry report dated 12.12.2001 (Annexure P-9). The petitioner was serving as a Section Officer (Wakf) with the respondents-Board. He was served with a Memorandum dated 30.4.1999 (Annexure P-1) asking him to submit his reply to the statement of CWP NO.16378 OF 2007 2 allegations/charge-sheet within a period of 15 days from the date of issuance of the Memorandum. The aforesaid Memorandum was accompanied with the statement of allegations framed against the petitioner. It appears that as many as 12 sets of allegations were made against the petitioner for which enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report dated 12.12.2001 (Annexure P-9). The Enquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner from all the charges, except Charge No.2 and found him guilty of misconduct under Charge No.2. On the basis of the Enquiry report, a show-cause notice dated 19/22.6.2002 (Annexure P-10) was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 6.7.2002 (Annexure P-11) to the said show-cause notice. On consideration of the reply, the impugned order dated 2.8.2007 (Annexure P-12) imposing penalty has been passed against the petitioner. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer has returned his findings on Charge No.2 without any evidence/material on record. As a matter of fact, the contention raised is that the findings on Charge No.2 are perverse and thus, the Enquiry report and consequential proceedings including the impugned order are liable to be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The only charge said to have been proved against the petitioner reads as under:- “Mosque No.256/1, Panipat This Mosque was given on licence to one Smt. Lachmi Devi wd/o Sh.Sham Lal at a licence fee of Rs.5/- p.a. w.e.f. 15.2.1969. She had paid licence fee upto 1978. She has converted this Mosque into a shop on ground floor and two CWP NO.16378 OF 2007 3 rooms on first floor. Lachmi Devi had handed over possession of this Mosque to Sh. Gurcharan Singh and Sh. Harmeet Singh son of Sh.Dalip Singh, r/o 408, HUDA Colony, Panipat through an agreement dated 25.11.1995 (photocopy enclosed). According to this agreement, she had taken Rs.45,000/- from them for handing over possession. Now she has filed a suit for declaration against Sh. Gurcharan Singh and Sh. Harmeet Singh and Punjab Wakf Board, which is pending in the Court. A complaint regarding demolition of the Mosque was received and after enquiry, it was recommended to file the suit against Smt. Lachmi Devi, S/Sh. Gurcharan Singh and Sh.Harmeet Singh and permission was sent to Estate Officer, Panipat vide No.C&E/285/96/Legal/2470-71 dated 30.5.1998. Sh. Mohd. Farooq while posted as Estate Officer, Panipat did not file the suit and instead he demanded revised permission on 17.8.1998 for filing suit for possession. Now there is no sign of Mosque and a show room of Cloth and Readymade Garments is running there.” During the course of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer has recorded following findings on the aforesaid charge:- “As far as charges levelled against Shri Mohd. Farooque, charged official in Article No.II is concerned, there is no any evidence as to whether permission to file the suit against Smt. Lachmi Devi etc. was sent to E.O. Or not. However, Shri Mohd. Farooq, E.O. charged official has sent request on 17.8.1998 for revised permission for filing suit, hence, this CWP NO.16378 OF 2007 4 charge stands proved against him...” From the aforesaid material on record, it appears that at the first place there was no specific charge or act of misconduct indicated in the charge-sheet. The only allegation is that the petitioner was asked to file suit against Lachmi Devi, but he did not file suit and asked for revised permission. Neither any detail whatsoever has been given in the charge- sheet nor any particular act of omission and commission attributable to the petitioner has been specified. As a matter of fact, allegations are too vague to constitute a specific charge. Apart from that, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer regarding Charge No.2 are based upon no evidence. Such findings fall within the realm of perversity and cannot be acted upon to impose punishment and that too a major penalty. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show any material/evidence on record collected during the course of the enquiry, on the basis of which the charge can be said to have been proved against the petitioner. It is settled principle of law that ordinarily, the Court, while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not interfere with the disciplinary proceedings, particularly, the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer. However, where it is found that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are based on no evidence/material, the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is exercisable. In the present case, the respondents have failed to show any material/evidence on the basis of which the charge can be said to have been proved against the petitioner. In the given circumstances, this petition is allowed. The charge-sheet dated 30.4.1999 (Annexure P-1), Enquiry Report dated 12.12.2001 CWP NO.16378 OF 2007 5 (Annexure P-9), show-cause notice dated 19/22.6.2002 (Annexure P-10) and the impugned order of punishment dated 2.8.2007 (Annexure P-12) are hereby quashed and set aside. No order as to costs. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 10.2.2009 MFK NOTE:Whether to be referred to Reporter or not:YES