CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4997 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 16, 2011 Sugar Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S. K. Monga, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner initially was appointed as a Lecturer by Director Secondary Education, Haryana on 20.3.1989. The petitioner claims to have maintained good record. As per the petitioner, there is no adverse entry ever conveyed to him. The petitioner was granted selection grade on 12.9.2002. On 6.8.2003, the petitioner was promoted as Principal by Government of Haryana under the Haryana Education Department (School and Inspection Cadre) (Group B) Services Rules, 1998. Upon promotion, the petitioner was posted at Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Alawalpur (Palwal). On CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4997 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: 2.8.2005, the petitioner was transferred to Government Senior Secondary School, Baroli, where he was conferred with the financial powers of all the four Government Schools in Village Baroli by the Block Education Officer, Hassanpur. The petitioner has averred that he had received an order from the Block Education Officer, Palwal, informing him that the Village Construction Committee earlier constituted would stand disbanded and in future if any work was to be undertaken in the School, the same shall be undertaken by a Committee constituted by the petitioner. As per the order dated 10.4.2006, the petitioner constituted a Village Construction Committee strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the State Project Director of Haryana Prathmic Shiksha Pariyojan Parishad. On 21.4.2008, the petitioner received a cheque amounting to `9,01,500/-, which was from the funds of Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan for construction of boundary wall of Government Girls Middle School, Baroli. As per the petitioner, resolution was passed by the Village Construction Committee, to get the boundary wall constructed with a big gate in order to stop the encroachment and interference from the outside. The power to carry out expenditure was conferred on the President and Member Secretary (i.e. petitioner). As per the petitioner, respondent No.5 started interfering with the construction work and raised a dispute as he wanted to encroach upon the school land. The petitioner, being Member Secretary of the Committee, moved an application before the Tehsildar, Palwal, for getting the Government land demarcated. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4997 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: demarcation was accordingly done and the petitioner, thus, earned a wrath of respondent No.5. Despite demarcation, respondent No.5 still continue to interfere. The petitioner thereupon requested the Deputy Commissioner for providing police help to get the construction work completed. The Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Hassanpur, was appointed as a Duty Magistrate. The complaint was also made to S.H.O. Respondent No.5 accordingly carried a grudge against the petitioner and prepared a frivolous complaint, which he addressed to the Chief Minister, Haryana, levelling serious allegation of embezzlement against the petitioner. The copy of the complaint was also given to the Deputy Commissioner, Palwal by respondent No.5. The Deputy Commissioner had detailed Additional Deputy Commissioner as an Enquiry Officer to submit a report on the allegations made by respondent No.5. Claiming that the Deputy Commissioner or Additional Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to conduct the inquiry in terms of the service rules applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge the enquiry report given by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Palwal, on the ground that this is wholly without jurisdiction. The petitioner avers that his service conditions are governed by Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (for short, “the Rules”) and his appointing and disciplinary authority is provided therein. According to this, Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Additional Deputy Commissioner would not have any jurisdiction to entertain any such complaint or to hold an CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4997 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: enquiry, as has been done. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondents by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Palwal. Reference is made to the complaint received by the Chief Minister, Haryana, regarding mis- utilization and embezzlement of the school funds. Copy of the complaint was also addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Palwal. It is stated that the Deputy Commissioner, being the pivotal head of the District Administration, found the allegations to be of serious nature and got the matter enquired by detailing the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Palwal. After affording proper opportunity and chance to offer defence and after recording the statement of the complainant, Additional Deputy Commissioner found substance in the allegations and submitted his report, which is annexed with this petition as Annexure P-13. It is stated that in view of the serious nature of the allegations, the matter has been got enquired into by the Deputy Commissioner, for which he would have full jurisdiction. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner has raised three prongs attack to the action against him. The petitioner has challenged the enquiry report, Annexure P-13, primarily on the ground of jurisdiction. The submission is that the services of the petitioner are governed and controlled under the Rules and the Deputy Commissioner does not fall in hierarchy in any manner to take any disciplinary action against him. The counsel then submits that respondent No.5, against whom he had made serious allegations of malafides, has not chosen to file reply. Counsel would further highlight that the petitioner had sought CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4997 OF 2010 :{ 5 }: police help from the Deputy Commissioner whereas while responding to these submissions made in the petition, the Deputy Commissioner has stated that the said allegations are denied for want of knowledge. On the basis of these submissions, counsel for the petitioner has challenged the report, Annexures P-13, which is finding recorded by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and submitted to Deputy Commissioner. The charges levelled in the impugned report (Annexure P- 13), which the Additional Deputy Commissioner has enquired into, apparently are of serious nature. The charges alleged against the petitioner numbering 14 are as under:- “Charge No.1:- The allegations of the complaint is that the amount which has been received from the Education Department, Haryana Govt. under Sarv Shiksha Abhiya for development and construction of building in 4 schools (Govt. Sr.Sec. School, Govt. Girls Middle School, Govt. Girls Primary School and Govt. Primary (B) School) situated in village Badoli has been spent by the Principal himself without putting the same before the VCC Committee of each School separately and in the construction work, sub-standard material has been used and forged utilization certificates have been obtained by obtaining the forged signatures of members of VCC. Charge No.2:- The complainants have stated that sub- standard material has been used in the construction work. Charge No.3:- It is the version of the complainant that CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4997 OF 2010 :{ 6 }: the principal got the amount of Rs.62,970/- withdrawn from Sh.Ved Ram, Head Master, Govt. Primary School and swallowed the same. Charge No.4:- In this charge, the complainant have stated that the principal by not disbursing the amount of Rs.535/- per student amongst economical weak students/girl students during the year 2008-09 has embezzled the same. Charge No.5:- On this point, the complainant have alleged against the Principal that an amount of Rs.4,78,800/- was sent by the Department for the repair and maintenance of boundary wall of Govt. Girls Primary School, whereas the boundary wall of the School was already existing 6-1/2 feet of height. The toilets had already bee constructed about 14/15 years and iron main gate was also present, but the principal got demolished upper partition of the boundary wall by two feet and got the construction completed on the old wall and in this way, he has usurped the entire grant. Charge No.6:- The complainants have stated in this charge that for the construction of toilets under Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan an amount of Rs.31,000/- was received for Govt. Girls Primary School, but the principal did not get the toilets constructed from this amount and has shown the amount as spent fraudulently thereby mis- appropriating the aforesaid amount. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4997 OF 2010 :{ 7 }: Charge No.7:- The complainants have stated that an amount of Rs.12,000/- was received for the repair of Govt. Girls Primary School, Badoli. No repair work has been done and forged utilization certificate have been sent to the Govt. thereby defrauding Public interest. Charge No.8:- The allegation of the complainant is that a cheque of Rs.9,01,500/- was received for the repair and maintenance of boundary wall of Govt. Girls Primary School, but the same has not been done. Charge No.9:- The allegation of the complainants is that Govt. Primary School (Bal) got allocation of Rs.1,15,000/- for repair and maintenance of building, but no work has been done so far. Charge No.10:- The allegation of the complainants is that Rs.1,15,000/- received for repair of Govt. Girls Primary School, Badoli. The assessment prepared by Junior Engineer, it seems that total estimate cost incurred is Rs.15,500/- + 16,500/- total Rs.32,000/-. For the remaining amount the forged utilization certificate has been prepared. No repair work was found in school... Charge No.11:- In this allegation also the complainant has disclosed the receipt of Rs.3100/- + Rs.40,000/- in Govt. Girls Middle School Badoli which was misappropriate by the principal himself and have shown the same as spent on school toilet, urinal and water tank, whereas two toilets and water tank in already constructed. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4997 OF 2010 :{ 8 }: Charge No.12:- The allegations of the complainants is that Rs.4,99,000/- received for the boundary wall of Govt. Senior Sec. School in which inferior quality material was used, the investigation be made. Charge No.13:- The allegations of the complainants is that an amount of Rs.4,99,300/- was received on 31.10.2004 for the repair of the building of Govt. Sr.Sec.School, out of which, some amount has been spent on the repair of the residence of the principal and the remaining amount has been swallowed by the principal himself. Charge No.14:- It is stated by the complainant that an amount of Rs.82,000/- for construction of Eduset room Rs.7,38,000/- for computer lab. Rs.9,30,000/- for the construction of 5 new rooms in all three schools and Rs.94000/- for 5 new rooms were received as donation from the Govt. The principal has used the sub-standard material in the construction of these rooms.” This enquiry, as directed by Deputy Commissioner,has apparently got nothing to do with the disciplinary action against the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner primarily has enquired into the allegations made by respondent No.5 regarding embezzlement of funds by the petitioner. The petitioner is a public servant. Apart from the disciplinary action, he is responsible for any action which he takes in regard to public fund for civil as well as criminal liability. So to urge that the Deputy Commissioner would not be competent to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4997 OF 2010 :{ 9 }: order investigation, even if there is an allegation of mis-utilization or embezzlement of funds, would apparently be misconceived. The Deputy Commissioner has not proceeded against the petitioner for taking disciplinary action. The Deputy Commissioner has got conducted a fact finding enquiry through Additional Deputy Commissioner in regard to the allegations made against the petitioner and accordingly findings were given by the Additional Deputy Commissioner. This may or may not form an action of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. It would be for the authorities to decide whether they would like to proceed against the petitioner for disciplinary action or would like to proceed against the petitioner for any criminal offence that may also be revealed. Submission that report, Annexure P-13, is without jurisdiction is also misconceived and can not be accepted. The allegations of malafide made against respondent No.5 have got no connection with the allegations made against the petitioner. He is just a complainant. He may have lodged this complaint on account of spite as the petitioner had taken action against him but that would not take away sting from the allegations that are made against the petitioner and are found to be having substance. Therefore, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order or report in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. August 16, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE