IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10112 of 1989 Date of decision: 3rd August, 2010 Sulakhan Singh … Petitioner Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Sulakhan Singh has preferred the present writ petition. At the relevant time, he was posted as an Assistant Store Keeper, Kapurthala Depot, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Kapurthala (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Corporation’). In the present writ petition, quashing of order dated 2nd August, 1989 (Annexure P-6), by way of a writ in the nature of certiorari, has been sought. A perusal of the order (Annexure P-6) reveals that the Managing Director of the Corporation had removed the petitioner from service of the Corporation with effect from 2nd August, 1989. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the respondent-Corporation as a Store Boy in the year 1973 on daily wage basis. His services were regularized with effect from 20th January, 1975. He was appointed as an Assistant Store Keeper on 20th January, 1977 at Civil Writ Petition No.10112 of 1989 Bathinda Depot and worked there till 1983. It is case of the petitioner that a few months before 1st January, 1982, he worked as Assistant Store Keeper in the stores but on 1st January, 1982 he was transferred to tool- room and therefore, the stores were not under his control. According to the petitioner, he worked in the tool-room from 1st January, 1982 till 1983. A chargesheet vide letter No.20240 dated 17.12.1987 was served upon the petitioner. The following charges were leveled against him along with other two officials: “(1) Caused shortage of store article worth Rs.66235.09 in the Store of Bhatinda-I depot during the year 1982-83 along with other officials of the Store and thereby misappropriated the said amount. (2) Dishonesty in connection with the business of the Corporation. (3) Habitual negligence in the performance of official duties and an act subversive of office discipline.” The first charge specifically stated that a shortage had occurred in the store for the year 1982-83. Thus, no shortage has been alleged against the petitioner for the period from 1977-78 to 1981-82. In case the period of 1982-83 is determined from 1st January, 1982 to 31st December, 1982 or from 1st April, 1982 to 31st March, 1983, for this period the petitioner had not worked in the stores. Be that as it may, the Enquiry Officer in his report at Annexure P-3, held the petitioner guilty of charges for the following reasons: “Sulakhan Singh A.S.K. has taken this plea during enquiry proceedings that he worked in the tool room for 9-10 months and in the store for only 2-3 months. In this connection D.M. Bhatinda-I, was written a letter who vide letter No.3588 dated 17.8.88 informed that Sulakhan Singh A.S.K. worked in their office, according to record, in the tool 2 Civil Writ Petition No.10112 of 1989 room from January 1982 to June 1983. Although this worker worked in the store for few months yet his responsibility towards the store cannot be ignored. Therefore, inquiry proceedings, concerned record and above mentioned true facts the charges leveled in the chargesheet No.20240 dated 17.12.87 stand proved. Sh.Partap Singh Store Boy (Now. A.S.) admitted during enquiry proceedings that he worked in the store during 1982-83. He cannot escape his responsibility by saying that store boy is not responsible. Responsibility is there because store boy is promoted as A.S.K. In this connection, it has already been written in the inquiry proceedings in the paragraphs above. Inquiry proceedings, concerned record and above mentioned true fact the charges leveled in the charge-sheet No.20134, dated 15.12.87 stand proved.” The Enquiry Officer stated that for a few months, petitioner remained in the stores and his responsibility cannot be ignored. Which were those few months ? No specific period has been divulged by the respondent-Corporation. In the present writ petition, no reply has been filed by the respondent-Corporation. The averment made in the writ petition that petitioner had not worked in the stores for the relevant period, for which he has been held guilty, has not been denied. Counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that earlier, a Civil Misc. No. 5334 of 2004 was filed in this Court, whereby the petitioner had placed on record a copy of judgment rendered by Sub Judge, 3rd Class, Bathinda in case of a co-employee Partap Singh. Partap Singh was also held guilty for the same charges and enquiry along with the petitioner was held. The Sub Judge, 3rd Class, Bathinda vide his judgment dated 30th April, 1993 had decreed the suit filed by Partap Singh. The judgment rendered by Sub Judge, 3rd Class, 3 Civil Writ Petition No.10112 of 1989 Bathinda was made subject matter of an appeal. Additional District Judge, Bathinda on 20th July, 1995 dismissed the appeal. Furthermore, the Corporation filed Regular Second Appeal No. 2514 of 1995, which was dismissed by a Single Bench of this Court on 9th November, 1995. The petitioner had made a representation dated 2nd December, 2003 to the Corporation stating that in view of these three judgments rendered in case of Partap Singh, a co-employee, his case be also considered. Legal Advisor of the Corporation on 30th December, 2003 stated that since the writ petition preferred by the petitioner was pending in this Court, therefore, his representation dated 2nd December, 2003 could not be considered. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court in ‘Director General of Police and others v. G. Dasayan’ (1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 407 to say that there should be parity among the co-delinquents, so far as the sentence is concerned. The petitioner cannot take benefit of this judgment as in case of Partap Singh, evidence was led before the Civil Court, who on the basis of the evidence of that case, came to a conclusion that removal of Partap Singh from service could not be upheld. In the present writ petition, only bald averments have been made. Therefore, the ground of parity, in stricto-sensu, will not be available to the petitioner. However, there should be a categoric finding of the Enquiry Officer as to for which period the petitioner was held responsible and whether at that time petitioner was working in stores or not. Furthermore, the Corporation had denied consideration of representation of the petitioner on the ground that his writ petition was pending in this Court. To what an extent the case of the petitioner is similar to that of Partap Singh, is required to be examined by the authorities. 4 Civil Writ Petition No.10112 of 1989 Thus, taking into consideration totality of circumstances and the observations made above, the authorities are directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to acquaint him with the specific period for which he is to be held liable for misappropriation of the stores. Furthermore, the authorities shall also consider the effect of the judgments rendered in the case of Partap Singh noticed above on the facts of case of the petitioner. Respondent-Corporation shall pass an order within a period of three months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. With the observations made above, present writ petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 3, 2010 rps 5