Partly allowed

Vijay Kumar Hari v. State of Punjab etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Sept 2013CWP/1219/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged dismissal order for auction irregularities. Court found serious charge unproved. Noting harshness and superannuation, court set aside dismissal and restored original order, treating petitioner as Clerk with commuted benefits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of dismissal set aside; original order of reversion restored; petitioner's service treated as Clerk with benefits commuted.

Vijay Kumar Hari Vs State of Punjab etc. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

C.W.P. No.1219 of 1999 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

C.W.P. No.1219 of 1999 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 13.9.2013

Vijay Kumar Hari

PETITIONER

VERSUS

State of Punjab and another

¶8

RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present:Shri Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Nilesh Bhardwaj, A.A.G. Punjab. Shri Arihant Jain, Advocate.

¶11

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶12

In this petition the petitioner impugns the order dated 16.9.1998 (Annexure P-11) by which the punishment of dismissal from service was awarded to him.

¶13

The petitioner was working as a Junior Assistant when he faced the charges of accepting illegal gratification and irregularities committed in the auction process regarding the sale of some urban property in Jalandhar. He was also charged with undervaluing the plots in return for accepting illegal gratification.

¶14

In the enquiry held against the petitioner, the charge of accepting illegal gratification was not proved. The only charge proved against the petitioner was of manipulating the auction dates which were published in the newspapers. Dass Ghanshyam 2013.09.18 11:14 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

¶15

C.W.P. No.1219 of 1999 -2-

¶16

The period prescribed for the auction was consciously shrunk in violation of the rules which prescribed a specific period as a mandate.

¶17

The petitioner was then reverted from the post of Junior Assistant to that of a Clerk. An appeal followed in which the Appellate Authority disagreed with the punishment awarded to the petitioner and instead of reversion, the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed from service which order he challenged by way of filing C.W.P. No.8591 of 1997 in which he pleaded that the procedure before inflicting the punishment of dismissal had not been followed and which prayer was accepted by this Court and the matter was remanded back to the competent authority for a decision afresh. This has led to the passing of the impugned order Annexure P-11.

¶18

The petitioner contends that once the charge of illegal gratification was not established against him, the remaining charge of manipulating the dates contrary to the rules was not such a serious charge so as to warrant dismissal from service. Besides, it has been pleaded that two other persons similarly charged as the petitioner were both let off – the Superintendent simply having been reverted and the Secretary having been exonerated, whereas the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of dismissal. Apart from this, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that while admitting this petition, operation of the impugned order had been stayed and consequent thereto, the petitioner has rendered his entire service and has now superannuated. He thus, contends that at this stage of the proceedings it would be extremely harsh to maintain the order of dismissal which in any case, has outlived its utility on account of the restraint order passed by this Court.

¶19

The prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents who has stated that there were serious allegations against the petitioner which are reflected in the impugned order and since no legal infirmity

¶20

Dass Ghanshyam 2013.09.18 11:14 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

¶21

C.W.P. No.1219 of 1999 -3-

¶22

has been shown either in the process leading to the passing of the order of dismissal, or in the impugned order itself the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

I have considered the matter in its entirety and noticed that the more serious charge against the petitioner of accepting the illegal gratification for deflating the price of the land and not conducting the auction has not been proved and the only charge sustained against him is that of shrinking the dates of the public notice about the auction contrary to the rules. Even though this Court would not have deemed it appropriate to substitute its own opinion in place of the opinion already formed by the appellate authority, but yet considering the facts in their totality when two other persons similarly charged as the petitioner have simply been treated differently, i.e. the Superintendent was let off with reversion while the Secretary was exonerated altogether, the punishment of dismissal seems to be harsh.

¶24

Besides this, the petitioner has served the respondents even though on account of the orders passed by this Court. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be squarely met if the original order of punishment by which the petitioner was reverted from the post of Junior Assistant to that of Clerk is retained instead of the order of dismissal considering the gravity of the charge, as also the treatment meted out to the similarly situated employees and also for the reason that the petitioner has prayed for this relief as well.

¶25

Consequently, the petition is disposed of by setting aside the order Annexure P-11 and restoring Anneuxre P-5 by which the petitioner was reverted from the post of Junior Assistant. The petitioner's service for all intents and purposes would be taken to be that of a Clerk and that benefits would be commuted in accordance with the same.

¶26

(MAHESH GROVER) September 13, 2013 JUDGE GD

¶27

WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO

¶28

Dass Ghanshyam 2013.09.18 11:14 I am the author of this document high court chandigarh

Vijay Kumar Hari v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Hari v. State of Punjab etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gf Toll Road Pvt. Ltd. Vs A.S. Chawla

Mahijeet Singh Sood Vs Punjab Small Ind.& Export Corp

Harpreet Singh and Others Vs Punjab Agri. University and Others

Gurbax Singh Vs D.S. Bains and Ors.

Gurmail Singh Vs Daljit Singh Brar

M.R.Farooqi Vs Punjab Wakf Board etc.