CWP No. 14629 of 1995 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CWP No. 14629 of 1995 Date of decision: 04.08.2011 Balbir Singh ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. B S Rana, Advocate for the petitioner Ms Harman Sullar, AAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) The petitioner Balbir Singh, J.E is seeking quashing of the charge sheet dated 10.03.1993 communicated to him vide forwarding letter dated 18.05.1993 (P12) for the loss relating to the year 1985 on the basis of Audit Report dated 13.07.1998 (P8). While praying for quashing of the said charge sheet, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that along with the petitioner, charge sheet of the same date was also issued to Shri B M Sharma, J.E. as well as to Shri Gurdarshan Singh, J.E. Shri B M Sharma, J.E filed Civil Writ Petition No.7038 of 1993 for issuing of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the CWP No. 14629 of 1995 2 charge sheet dated 10.03.1993, issued to him for the loss due to breakage in the pipes. The Division Bench vide order dated 19.10.1993 allowed the aforesaid writ petition and quashed the impugned charge sheet and restrained the respondents from continuing with the disciplinary proceedings against Shri B M Sharma and the ground on which the charge sheet was quashed was same in the case of the petitioner. It was further contended that the charges against Shri Gurdarshan Singh, JE were withdrawn because broken percentage of the pipes against him came to be just 2%, whereas, the broken percentage against the present petitioner is only 0.81%. Another argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been informing the respondents about the broken pipes from the very beginning vide P4 but no action was taken against the default at that time and the same number and size of the pipes was admitted by the respondents in letter P5 after physical verification done by the Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Health, Sub Division No. 4, Abohar. As such, he is being harassed on account of his bringing the loss to the notice of the respondents. Lastly, while dropping the charges against Shri Gurdarshan Singh J.E. vide letter dated 09.08.1990 (P11) addressed by the Executive Engineer, Public Health (RWS) Division No. 1, Abohar to the Assistant Engineer, Public Health (RWS) Ferozepur, it was specifically written that only Shri B M Sharma, JE is responsible for the broken pipes. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, while vehemently opposing the writ petition, submitted that the case of the CWP No. 14629 of 1995 3 petitioner was different from the case of BM Sharma, JE. The delay in the present case has been duly explained and that the allegation against the petitioner was not only qua the loss of broken pipes but also of embezzlement. Heard. The charge sheet issued to the present petitioner is dated 10.03.1993. The charge sheet issued to Shri B M Sharma, J E was also of the same date. Both relate to the loss and shortage of pipes in the same project of the same year i.e. 1985. The charge sheet qua Shri B M Sharma was quashed on the ground of delay by observing as under:- “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the allegations forming the subject matter of the charge sheet served on the petitioner on 10th March, 1993 (Annexure P5), are fairly stale and no action was taken by way of disciplinary proceedings for a considerably long period. In view of this position, we find that the case is squarely covered by the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as Jagir Singh v. State of Punjab, 1993 (1) S.L.R. 1, in which reliance had been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh, 1990 (2) S.L.R. 798. Accordingly, we allow this petition and quash the impugned charge sheet dated 10th March, 1993, and restrain the respondents from continuing the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the basis thereof.” A certified copy of the said order dated 19.10.1993 has been CWP No. 14629 of 1995 4 placed on record and is marked as A-1. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the order dated 10.03.1993 passed in CWP No. 7038 of 1993. Moreover, it is not disputed that no S.L.P. was filed against the order dated 19.10.1993 passed in CWP No. 7038 of 1993 and the said order has attained finality. Further, It is not disputed that the charges qua Shri Gurdarshan Singh, J E have been dropped. In view of the above and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the order dated 19.10.1993 passed in CWP No. 7038 of 1993, this Court is satisfied that the case of the present petitioner is similar to that of co-accused Shri B.M.Sharma, JE. As such, the petitioner cannot be treated differently. Moreover, the petitioner has since retired on attaining the age of superanuation on 30.11.2005. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned charge sheet dated 10.03.1993 communicated to the petitioner vide forwarding letter dated 18.05.1993 (P12) is quashed and the respondents are restrained from continuing with the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner on the basis thereof. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 04.08.2011 mohan