Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sh. Ranbir Singh vs Financial Commissioner And Secretary ... on 20 February, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)119PLR202
Author: N.C. Khichi
Bench: N.C. Khichi
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. The petitioner, a Patwari, challenges the validity of Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. He alleges that the rule confers a totally unguided and unbridled power on the appropriate authority to award a major or minor penalty without laying down any guideline. Thus, the rule is invalid and the action of the authorities in ordering his removal from service is vitiated. Is it so?
2. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.
3. The petitioner was recruited as a Patwari in March, 1973. In July, 1983, one Jagjit Singh submitted an application to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Panipat, for the grant of a domicile certificate. The petitioner certified that the applicant was residing in Village Waiseri for the last six years and "is holding land in the village". The report was finally put up before the Sub Divisional officer who directed that the certificate be issued. A certificate dated August 9, 1983 was actually issued. Jagjit Singh applied for admission to the B.Ed. Course. The college suspected the genuineness of the domicile certificate. The matter ultimately came to the notice of the collector. On July 30, 1985, the petitioner was charge-sheeted. After a detailed enquiry, the Collector vide his order dated November 19, 1986, awarded the penalty of removal from service to the petitioner. He filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner vide his order dated May 5, 1987. The petitioner submitted a revision petition. The collector withheld the revision petition. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated November 13, 1987 informed the petitioner that his petition had been filed.'
4. Aggrieved by the orders passed by different authorities, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1271 of 1988. Unfortunately, this petition remained pending for a period of about nine years. In April, 1997, the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. application No. 6784 of 1997 with a prayer that the writ petition may be ordered to be listed for hearing. This application was listed for hearing before one of us (Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.). With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the main writ petition was taken up for hearing. The action of the Collector in withholding the revision as also of the Financial Commissioner in directing that the petition be 'filed', were set aside. The Financial Commissioner was directed to decide the revision petition on merits expeditiously. In pursuance of the directions given by the Court on April 7, 1997, the Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision petition vide order dated November 10, 1997. Hence this petition.
5. Mr. Bhoop Singh, counsel for the petitioner has made a two-fold submission. Firstly, learned counsel has contended that Rule 4 which empowers the appropriate authority to impose one of the prescribed penalties is unconstitutional as it confers totally unguided and unbridled powers. Secondly, it has been contended that in the circumstances of the case, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is highly excessive.
6. Even though proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner under the 1952 rules, yet the petitioner has only impugned the provisions of Rule 4 as enacted in the year 1987. This rule empowers the competent authority to impose any of the prescribed penalties for "good and sufficient reasons". Still further, the procedure which has to be followed before awarding any of the penalties has been laid down. It ensures the grant of a reasonable opportunity to the employee before an order imposing a minor or major penalty is passed.
7. On a perusal of the rules, it is clear that the power to impose penalty has been conferred on senior officers. The penalty can be imposed only after following the prescribed procedure. The authority can award a penalty only for good and sufficient reason. The rule, thus, contains sufficient guidelines. It cannot be said that the rule confers totally unguided powers. The rule contains sufficient checks in as much as it imposes an obligation to hold an enquiry etc. Stilt further, the rules provide for the remedies of appeal and revision etc. to the higher authorities. Thus, the orders passed by the punishing authority are not final. The powers are not unbridled. There are sufficient checks and controls. Thus, the challenge to the validity of the rule is wholly unfounded and cannot be sustained.
8. It was contended that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is highly excessive. Is it so?
9. The petitioner has alleged that the applicant had been identified by an advocate. He had issued the certificate as the facts had been verified by Mr. Mukhtiar Singh, Advocate. It has also alleged that the petitioner was over-burdened with work.
10. The contention raised by the petitioner is wholly misconceived. A copy of the application submitted by the candidate alongwith the alleged endorsement of the Advocate, has been produced as Annexure P-1 with the writ petition. Below the application, the following endorsement appears:-
"I know Jagjit Singh and he is resident of Waiseri and he has signed in my presence."
This endorsement is not signed by any one. There is nothing to indicate that Mr. Mukhtiar Singh, Advocate had ever certified the genuineness of the claim made by the candidate. In spite of that, the petitioner made the following report :-
"It is certified that Jagjit Singh S/o Soran Singh is residing in Waiseri for the last six years. He has own land also. Therefore, report is submitted. Sd/-
Ranbir Singh, H. Lohari, 20.7.1987"
(the year should be 1983 and not 1987).
11. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner certified that the applicant had been residing in Village Waiseri for the last six years and he owned land therein. This was even beyond that what the candidate had claimed or the lawyer is alleged to have certified. The candidate and the lawyer never claimed that Jagjit Singh owned any land in the village. Still further, the lawyer never certified that the candidate had been residing in the village for the last six years. Thus, the entire report made by the petitioner immediately after the receipt of the application was not based on any verification of facts. Still further, his claim that he had believed the lawyer is also not correct as the endorsement is not even signed by any one. Thus, the factual basis for the report is wholly non-existent. The claim that the petitioner had believed the Advocate is wholly unbelievable.
12. Mr. Bhoop Singh pointed out that the entries in the Jamabandi show that the petitioner owns land. A copy of the jamabandi for the year 1978-79 has been produced as Annexure P-12 with the writ petition. It does not show that Jagjit Singh owns any land. Even the claim regarding lease as now sought to be made out, is unfounded. Jagjit Singh's name does not appear in the document. Merely because the land is shown to be under the ownership or cultivation of one Soran S/o Singh Ram, it cannot be concluded that it related to Jagjit Singh or his father Sarwan Singh. There is nothing to show that 'Soran' and 'Sarwan Singh' related to the same person.
13. It was then contended that the petitioner was over-burdened with work. This is a wholly baseless claim. There is no data before the Court to accept this contention. Still further, even if it is assumed that the petitioner was over-burdened with work, he could have taken time and verified facts before issuing the certificate. He need not have issued it on the day he received the application. The fact that he did so indicates that the petitioner was in some kind of hurry. The reason can only be imagined. He has not disclosed any.
14. No other point has been raised.
15. In view of above, there is no merit in this writ petition. It is, consequently, dismissed in limine.