Abnash Chander Purang v. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J

Judgment

1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 23 4.1979, Annexure P-20, dismissing the petitioner from service.

2. Case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as

Superintendent-cum-Accountant and was confirmed in service. Charge sheet dated 3.6.1977 was served on the petitioner alleging non-deposit of security money of contractors, not charging extra amount for the corner plots, loss of interest and indiscipline. The said charges were denied by the petitioner. Inquiry report was submitted holding the charges to be proved. A show cause notice dated 23.6.1978 was issued to the petitioner, to which he submitted his reply and thereafter, order of dismissal was passed. According to the petitioner, he was not given fair opportunity and the order was malafide.

3. In the reply filed on behalf of the Improvement Trust, it has been stated that the petitioner died on 25.12.1998 and that due CWP No.3199 of 1987 2 opportunity was given to him in the departmental inquiry and dismissal was for proved misconduct.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner died on 25.12.1998 but his legal heirs were brought on record by order dated 28.10.1999 passed by Division Bench in LPA No.336 of 1998 filed against order declining to restore the writ petition which was dismissed in default. The petitioner is survived by his wife, son and three daughters. He further submits that the petitioner being a confirmed and regular employee holding substantive post of Superintendent-cum- Accountant was entitled to reasonable opportunity during the departmental enquiry. The said opportunity was denied to him by not allowing him a copy of note put up by the Chairman. Copies of day to day proceedings were not supplied to him during enquiry as mentioned in para 15 of the petition. He was not allowed to engage a counsel nor was called upon to produce defence evidence.

6. Submissions made on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The report of the Enquiry Officer which has been accepted by the disciplinary authority, Annexure P.16 shows that charges against the delinquent were proved. Some of the findings in the said report are:- “The cash book of the Trust shows a considerable cash balance on the relevant dates the details of which are as follows:-

19.2.75 11.8.76 27.11.76 Rs.80048-00 Rs. 4035-00 Rs.84521-00 CWP No.3199 of 1987 3

15.11.76 Rs.78574-00 Shri Avinash Chander has made a statement that he had not deposited the amount as per the orders of Chairman Shri Pritam Kumar Goyal was summoned on 8.3.78 and he did not confirm the statement made by Shri Avinash Chander and further stated that he had not made any such statement. In this connection Shri Jai Parkash Mittal, Partner M/s S.C.Mittal and Co., was also summoned who stated that they would charge interest on the security amount. Shri Avinash Chander tried to prove that Rs.5800/- had not remained with him. The Trust led evidence to prove that Rs.5800/- and other amounts of securities were received by Shri Avinash Chander on 10.2.78. The amount of Rs.5800/- as security was deposited in the Trust account on 19.2.78. Other amounts of securities have been refunded under his signatures to M/s Shivani Construction Co., Yamuna Nagar and Shri Om Parkash contractor as per tender register. It shows that Shri Avinash Chander was dealing with the securities. In my opinion, a loss of Rs.735.52 has been caused to the Trust by Shri Avinash Chander. The charge of loss on account of interest against Shri Avinash Chander stands proved and Shri Avinash Chander is at fault. Xx The loss of interest and penal interest to the extent of Rs.2300/- has been caused to Trust by Shri Avinash Chander. The notice of auction is come and bid on

17.4.1974 at 11 AM. It is clearly stated that one rupee per sq. yard is to be charged extra on the corner plot. The statement of Shri Avinash Chander is not taken to CWP No.3199 of 1987 4 be correct that the amount on account of Rs.1/- per square yard was included in the bid. According to the auction Rs.1/- was to be charged once and above the highest bid which has not been done. It is thus proved that extra amount of Rs.1/- per square yard on the corner plots was not charged on the auction done on 17.4.1974 and thus loss was caused to the Trust. The charge No.3 also stands proved. Xx Shri Avinash Chander also stated that the delay was caused because the possession of the land had not been handed over to the auction purchasers. But he has not been able to prove as to how he has left the charging of penal interest without the trust’s approval or without the notice of the Chairman of the Trust. It was not within the powers of Shri Abnash Chander Purang. Hence the charge of causing loss to the Trust on account of penal interest is proved against Shri Abnash Chander Purang.”

7. Scope of judicial review on disciplinary action is well known. In exercise of said power, the Court does not re-appreciate the evidence and does not interfere with the finding of the Enquiry Officer unless the same is perverse or based on no evidence. Reference may be made to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa and others v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra, AIR 1963 SC 779, Union of India v. H.C.Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 and State of A.P. and others v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723. Thus, the misconduct having been proved and the finding not being perverse, there is no ground to interfere with the same. There is also no reason to hold that there is CWP No.3199 of 1987 5 violation of principles of natural justice. Charge sheet was given to the petitioner. His reply was considered. Evidence was recorded in his presence. He had the opportunity of putting forward his defence. Inspection of documents was duly allowed. Prayer for permission to engage counsel was also duly considered and decided. There is, thus, no denial of reasonable opportunity or prejudice caused to the petitioner in defending himself. In S.K.Sharma v. State Bank of Patiala, (1996) 3 SCC 364, it was held that in absence of prejudice, mere alleged violation of principles of natural justice does not vitiate action of disciplinary authority.

8. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. July 23, 2010 ashwani/gs (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE