Civil Writ Petition No.1522 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.1522 of 2011 Date of Decision:-20.07. 2011 Tirath Ram. ......Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ......Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI. Present:- Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Anu Pal, AAG Punjab. *** RITU BAHRI, J.(ORAL) Petitioner was appointed as Clerk vide letter dated 24.04.2002 in Punjab Vidhan Sabha. He was confirmed on 17.05.2004. On a complaint dated 25.07.2005 by Secretary to Speaker Navtej Singh the petitioner was placed under suspension on 27.7.2005. On 8.12.2005 petitioner was served charge sheet . The charges levelled against the petitioner were:- (i) That his behaviour is of doubtful nature that is he is not a reliable person. That it was due to his nature that the official was turned out of his official bungalow by the Hon'ble Speaker. And that the official had been claiming House Rent Allowance while he was putting up at the residence of Hon. Speaker. (ii) That he used to go to his native place Mukerian every week without obtaining permission to leave station. Civil Writ Petition No.1522 of 2011 #2# (iii) That his behaviour with his colleagues is of a vindictive nature and that it is not upto the mark. (iv) That he is in the habit of divulging contents of official matter and confidential documents to outsiders. The petitioner replied to the charge sheet on 22.12.2005. On 20.03.2006 Sh. Madan Mohan, Additional Secretary, Punjab Vidhan Sabha was appointed as Enquiry Officer. On 27.04.2006 the Enquiry Officer supplied the copy of the enquiry report dated 27.04.2006 to the petitioner (Annexure P-3). After filing of objections on 10.05.2006 vide order dated 19.05.2006 petitioner was removed from service (Annexure P-4). These enquiry proceedings were challenged. Vide judgment dated 23.04.2009 this Court quashed the enquiry report dated 27.04.2006 and order of punishment dated 19.05.2006. Liberty was granted to the respondents to hold fresh enquiry in accordance with law by observing principles of natural justice. The petitioner has challenged the subsequent enquiry proceedings and enquiry report dated 27.08.2009 conducted by the respondent by way of filing of this writ petition. In the second enquiry the order dated 19.05.2006 has been upheld. Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner has challenged the second enquiry on the ground that Enquiry Officer has relied upon the evidence which was led before the first Enquiry Officer. In the first enquiry, petitioner had not cross-examined the witnesses. Reliance has been placed on the affidavit given by Milkhi Ram son of Chajju Ram dated 27.04.2006 which was part of the earlier enquiry proceedings. Milkhi Ram was not produced before the Enquiry Officer nor was he cross examined. As regards second charge that petitioner used to go on leave without obtaining permission to leave station has been held against the Civil Writ Petition No.1522 of 2011 #3# petitioner whereas it was the prosecution officials to prove the same. As regards the third charge, the witnesses turned hostile while recording the statements before the second Enquiry Officer as such the charge that his behaviour with his colleagues was vindictive could not be proved. As regards charge no.4 he argued that petitioner was merely a Clerk in the office of Speaker and was in no manner is handling the official matters and confidential documents. No reference has been made as to which information he had divulged from the official/confidential reports. As regards the second charge the official record was the best evidence to prove that he had left the headquarters without permission. No record has been produced. On the other hand learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once the first enquiry was set aside on the ground that it was conducted without following the due procedure i.e. the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses the same evidence could not be relied upon by the Enquiry Officer in the second enquiry to come to a conclusion that all the charges are proved against him. Learned Counsel for the respondent Ms. Anu Pal, AAG Punjab on the other hand has argued that proper procedure had been adopted by the Enquiry Officer before passing the impugned order. The petitioner was permitted to bring Sh. Shiv Charan, Defence Assistant to plead his case. He was given 15 days time to explain whether he replied to the charges or not. Even though the witnesses had turned hostile but second charge and the fourth charge have been proved against the petitioner that he used to leave for his native place Mukerian without permission and he was in the Civil Writ Petition No.1522 of 2011 #4# habit of divulging the contents of official matters/confidential reports to outsiders. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case the charges leveled against the petitioner have not been successfully proved. Even though the witnesses had turned hostile on first charge. It was the affidavit of Milkhi Ram which was produced before the Enquiry Officer has been considered bona fide. He has not been produced before the enquiry even though the witnesses have turned hostile qua first, second and third charge. They had no enmity against the petitioner. As far as the second and fourth charge are concerned there is no reference to any factual divulgence of official letters and confidential documents by the department. It was the department who could prove that he did not obtain any permission to leave the Station. In the enquiry the management have not been able to prove any charge against the petitioner. Writ petition is allowed. Inquiry report dated 27.08.2009(P-6) and punishment order dated 9.12.2010(P-9) are quashed with all consequential benefits. No costs. ( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE July 20, 2011 Vinay