Civil Writ Petition No. 8055 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 8055 of 1996 Date of decision: 5.10.2009 Jagdish Singh ...petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner who was working as Conductor in the Transport Department, was proceeded against departmentally with the allegation of embezzlement. The allegation made against the petitioner is that while working as Cashier in Haryana Roadways, Yamuna Nagar, he drew an amount of Rs. 15,71,581.17/- on 1.5.1987, showing these advances payable in favour of M/s Indian Oil Corporation, Amabla Cantt. It is alleged that he made a payment to Sh. Mehar Singh, Cashier amounting to Rs. 30,000/-, which was entered in cash book on payment side on 1.5.1987. Sh. Mehar Singh, Cashier though acknowledged the amount of Rs. 1,68,000/- but stated that this amount was not paid to him but was adjusted against the bills of Petrol Clerk (D.P.I.) by the petitioner, who was working as a Cashier. It is further alleged that the petitioner did not give any petrol bills against which the sum of Rs. 30,000/- has been shown to be adjusted. The petitioner denied the charges made Civil Writ Petition No. 8055 of 1996 2 against him. Respondent No.2 was appointed as Inquiry Officer to inquire into charges. After conclusion of the inquiry, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he furnished his reply. The petitioner pleaded for his exoneration of the charges besides challenging the finding returned by the Inquiry Officer. The Transport Commissioner did not agree with the contention raised by the petitioner and imposed the punishment of dismissal. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner. He had accordingly filed this writ petition to challenge the various orders passed in this case. The writ petition was admitted and has now come up for hearing. In between, the petitioner had filed an application to point out that Mehar Singh, who was alleged paid this amount was also proceeded against and was dismissed from service. His appeal against the order of dismissal was also declined and so too the prayer made in the writ petition to challenge the said order of dismissal by this Court. Thereafter, he had filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Court by considering the entire facts partly allowed the appeal by directing that the punishment of dismissal be commuted to compulsory retirement. The petitioner, therefore, prayed for equal treatment as meted to Mehar Singh. This application of the petitioner, however, was declined as none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The plea for being treated similarly as was sought could not be substantiated. The petitioner, however, was given liberty to raise all these pleas at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the Civil Writ Petition No. 8055 of 1996 3 allegation made against Mehar Singh and has then referred to the allegation made against the petitioner. The issue is concerning the payment of Rs. 30,000/- . The petitioner claims to have made this payment to Mehar Singh, who had acknowledged the receipt. Mehar Singh, however, would contend this amount was not paid to him but was shown paid to the petrol clerk. If the allegations made against the petitioner are seen, it would show that the petitioner is alleged to have made this payment of the complete amount of Rs. 1,68,000/- which of course is acknowledged by Mehar Singh. Mehar Singh has also confirmed that this amount was though shown paid to him but was not actually paid on the ground that it was required to be adjusted as payment to the petrol clerk. The case of the petitioner as well as that of Mehar Singh thus is not much distinguishable. Either the petitioner or Mehar Singh had allegedly misappropriated this amount, if it is not accounted for. Keeping the facts in view the punishment awarded to Mehar Singh, who though was found guilty of the allegation was commuted to compulsory retirement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It may thus would require consideration if similar treatment would be due to the petitioner as well. The petitioner has even expired by now. His family apparently is suffering. Taking the totality of circumstances in view and the fact that allegation made against the petitioner and Mehar Singh arose out of same transaction, they both may deserve similar treatment. Following the course as adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the prayer made in the writ petition limited to the extent of commuting the punishment of dismissal to compulsory retirement is allowed. The punishment awarded to the Civil Writ Petition No. 8055 of 1996 4 petitioner would stand altered to compulsory retirement as was done in the case of Mehar Singh. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent as aforementioned. Punishment of dismissal awarded to the petitioner, therefore, shall be commuted to compulsory retirement from the date of the order of dismissal. The remaining reliefs, however, shall stand declined. The consequential relief be granted to the petitioner would follow within 4 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. October 05, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE