Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Niwas vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 April, 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 5807 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: April 17, 2012
Ram Niwas
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
Present: Mr. S.B. Kaushik, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Addl. AG, Haryana,
for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate,
for respondent No. 4.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the instant Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to initiate proceedings as per the recommendations made by the Lok Ayukta, Haryana against respondent Nos. 4 to 6 for embezzlement of public money and causing financial loss to the exchequer by their acts of omission and commission. The petitioner has highlighted that as to how respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 despite having been found guilty of illegalities and irregularities in purchases for the Government had not been punished appropriately because of certain extraneous consideration. He has also averred C.W.P. NO. 5807 of 2010 (O&M) 2 that despite specific orders of Lokayukta, Haryana and findings of Enquiry Officer Shri P.S. Narwal, Deputy Director, against respondent No. 4 and 5 regarding irregularities committed by them in the purchases and against respondent No. 6 for getting undue advantages in his official capacity, the State did not even deem it appropriate to suspend them keeping in view established charges of embezzlement or misuse of office and despite arrest of one of the accused in FIR No. 161, dated 1.4.2010, under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon.
2. The petitioner is working as a Painter Instructor at ITI, Sonepat. On 28.3.2008, he made a complaint to the Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department, Haryana- respondent No. 3. He pointed out misappropriation of `50,000/- by Raj Kumar-respondent No. 4, who has been working as a Principal, ITI Gurgaon. He also highlighted corrupt practices in the purchase of books and embezzlement of `15,00,000/- in the purchase of one Jeep and one TATA-407 Truck. The petitioner also lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta Haryana. As per the allegations made, respondent No. 4 has purchased one old Jeep for `6,48,002/- and one TATA-407 Truck for `9,83,295, whereas at the relevant point of time a New Maxx 10 STR Jeep was available at the ex- showroom price of `4,76,000/- and a new TATA Model SFC-407 was available at the ex-showroom price of `5,15,398/-.
3. On 27.7.2009 (P-5), the Director-respondent No. 3 informed the office of Lok Ayukta, Haryana that a charge sheet for embezzlement of `16.31 lacs in the matter of purchase of a Jeep and a TATA407 was issued against respondent No. 4 and disciplinary action was initiated under Rule 7 of Haryana Civil C.W.P. NO. 5807 of 2010 (O&M) 3 Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1987 (for brevity, 'the Punishment Rules').
4. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 27.11.2009 recorded a categorical finding against respondent No. 4, which is as follows:
" After examining the above documents, the preliminary inquiry of both officers it is found that two vehicles were demanded one is light commercial vehicle and second was four wheeler diesel vehicle. Purchase committee was constituted for this purpose; the head of the same committee was the Principal himself. Spare parts were purchased instead of new vehicles and then it was assembled. The chasis of vehicles Tata-407 and Jeep were purchased from scrap shops. Perhaps, this is a extra-ordinary case in the state where the officers has committed irregularities and acted with irresponsibility and violated the rules and try to show the old vehicles as a new vehicle. It is also objectionable and offenceable that the price of assembled vehicles cost very high than the new vehicles. Sh. Raj Kumar was Chairman of purchase committee and all this happen in his Chairmanship and fully involved himself in this matter for which he is responsible for financial loss to the State Govt. and tarnished the reputation of the department. Hence all the allegations leveled against Sh. Raj Kumar stand proved. The complainant has stated that all the irregularities have made (sic were committed?) on the instructions of Sh. Kamlesh Kumar PS to director working C.W.P. NO. 5807 of 2010 (O&M) 4 in the head office. Complainant has also stated that he remained suspended by (sic for?) such as omissions. This is a serious matter which is considerable for the department."
5. It has also come on record that respondent No. 4-Raj Kumar along with members of the purchase committee, namely, Anil Kumar Yadav and others, after having been found guilty for purchase of old vehicles showing them as new through forged bills, had been imposed punishments of mere fine and stoppage of increments.
6. It is pertinent to mention that a similar worded order has been passed in the case of Shri Anil Kumar Yadav, who was also found guilty in the inquiry conducted against him under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987.
7. Raj Kumar-respondent No. 4 was also charge sheeted under Rule 7 of the Punishment Rules for committing irregularities in recruitment of 21 instructors on DC rates. Similarly, respondent No. 4 as well as other officers in the department have been dealt with leniently for illegal purchase of books worth lacs of rupees by imposing a meager fine of `10,000/- and recordable warning. Information regarding FIR No. 161, dated 1.4.2010 under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Gurgaon, was obtained from the Court below. It is informed that respondent No. 4-Raj Kumar was arrested on 2.10.2010 and released on bail on 18.10.2010 and his co-accused Anil Kumar Yadav, a Government official, is still at large.
8. A complaint to the Lokayukta Haryana against Jaivrat Sharma-respondent No. 5 was made by Shri Mukesh Bhardwaj, C.W.P. NO. 5807 of 2010 (O&M) 5 Drawing Instructor, Industrial Training, Hisar. It was alleged that respondent No. 5 had obtained appointment to the post of Vice- Principal in the year 1986 on the basis of a forged certificate, dated 11.8.1983. It has been submitted that though a charge sheet was served upon him on 17.1.2006 but no witness was called for in evidence. On 14.2.2007, the Lokayukta Haryana asked the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department, to furnish information about the progress of the charge sheet issued to respondent No. 5. In response thereto, it was intimated on 28.2.2007 that the charge sheet has been dropped vide order dated 6.2.2007. After considering the reply, the Lokayukta Haryana passed the following order on 6.8.2008 (P-8):
" I am, therefore, satisfied that the allegation of the complainants that the contents of letter dated 11.8.1983 filed by Shri Jaivart Sharma in support of his qualification as a diploma holder was wrong and misleading the approach of the Financial Commissioner in dealing with this letter in his office order dated 6.2.2007 was contrary to the factual and legal position. I therefore recommend that the Chief Secretary should re-examine this matter in the light of the observations made above and take appropriate action.
I also find that decision in the matter has been unnecessarily delayed. The complaint was filed on 27.1.2003. However, charge sheet on the basis of the complaint was issued on 17.1.2006 and the final decision was taken on 6.2.2007. The Chief Secretary should also C.W.P. NO. 5807 of 2010 (O&M) 6 examine the reasons for delay and if the same is attributable to any particular public servant, necessary action be taken against such public servant.
Shri Jaivart Sharma was working as an Electronic Instructor in the department of Industrial Training, Haryana Chandigarh as is evident from the column 11 at page A-6(5) of the application form. At page A-6(11) it is clearly stated that if the applicant is in government service or in semi-government service, then his appointing officer shall certify that the applicant possesses the requisite qualification. However the application of Shri Jaivart Sharma was not certified by his appointing authority and the relevant column at page A- 6(11) column was left blank. The Chief Secretary shall also keep in view the consequences flowing from such an omission.
The Chief Secretary is requested to take a decision in this matter at the earliest as it has already been delayed by more than four years. A copy of his decision may also be forwarded to this office."
9. With regard to Shri Kamlesh Kumar-respondent No. 6 it is alleged that he was posted as Personal Assistant to the Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department, Haryana. He is stated to be instrumental in shielding the corrupt officers. By misrepresenting he got himself promoted as Research Assistant with retrospective effect i.e. 8.11.1994, vide order dated 29.1.1998. He also managed his retrospective promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent w.e.f. 1.9.1997, vide order dated 27.3.1998 (P-10 to C.W.P. NO. 5807 of 2010 (O&M) 7 P-12). On 11.10.1999 (P-13), at the behest of respondent No. 6, a note was sent by the then MLA Dabwali to the Chief Minister, Haryana, which reads as under:
" I would request Hon'ble Chief Minister to upgrade the post of Personal Assistant to Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department, Haryana to that of Private Secretary. The incumbent of the post belongs to my constituency and I am personally interested in this case."
10. On 24.12.1999 (P-14), the post of Personal Assistant to Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana, was upgraded to that of Private Secretary as a special case and a measure personal to Shri Kamlesh Kumar-respondent No. 6. He also got a telephone installed at his residence without sanction and when a complaint was made by the petitioner, the telephone facility was withdrawn. In his order dated 12.8.2009 (P-6), the Lokayukta Haryana has made the following observations with regard to respondent No. 6:
" In his report dated 8.8.2008, Shri P.S. Narwal had found that the upgradation of the post of Personal Assistant to Private Secretary could not have been made in the department as per the Rules. The Director shall, therefore, also explain as to what action had been taken on the basis of the said report."
11. On 12.8.2011, when this matter came up for consideration before this Court, it was found that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in particular, have not been appropriately dealt with despite their proven guilt for embezzlement of huge amount of Government C.W.P. NO. 5807 of 2010 (O&M) 8 money. Even for a single day, they did not remain suspended despite the fact that respondent No. 4 had remained in custody for 16 days with effect from 2.10.2010 to 18.10.2010. Accordingly, this Court was compelled to ask the learned State counsel as to what extent there is tolerance level of the corruption in the State and to which extent corrupt officers are protected in Haryana.
12. In response to the query of this Court, an affidavit of Joint Secretary, Industrial Training, Department of Haryana was filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. However, the same was found to be incomplete in number of respects because the punishment orders passed by the competent authorities were not filed nor the findings of the Enquiry Officers were placed before this Court. Accordingly, on 20.10.2011 this Court ordered for filing a comprehensive status report by including the copies of the inquiry reports, the reply of such persons who have already been named and the order passed by the punishing authority/appellate authority etc.
13. Thereupon a status report dated 30.11.2011 along with various documents like show cause notice(s), replies furnished by the delinquent officials and punishment orders passed by the authorities etc. etc. were filed. From the status report it is gathered that on 14.1.2010 (R-2), a show cause notice with the purposed punishment of removal from service was issued to respondent No.
4. The Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Technical Educational and Industrial Training Department, vide his order dated 06.08.2010 (R-6) has approved the conclusion reached by the Inquiry Officer as is evident from the perusal of following extracts of the penultimate para of the C.W.P. NO. 5807 of 2010 (O&M) 9 order which read as under:
" ......After examining the inquiry report and report of Technical Officers and reply of Sh. Raj Kumar, it was found that the officer is absolutely responsible for loss of 16.32 lacs to the State Govt. for purchasing Tata-407 and Jeep. I am of the conclusion that Sh. Raj Kumar is responsible officer and was head of the purchase committee and he is fully guilty in purchasing of vehicles. So, taking lenient view, the punishment of removal from service vide dated 14.1.2010 was converted into (recovery?) of total embezzlement of 16.32 lacs. Assessed price of both vehicle Rs. 63,900/- + 15,000/- total 1,13,900/- (recovered as token money from two retired employees) is reduced and balance Rs. 15,18,002/- 2/3 of that amount i.e. 10,12,000/- will be recovered from monthly salary as per PFR Volume-1 Rule
5.9 and I order stoppage of 6 increments with cumulative effect and he will be restrained as a member or head of any purchase committee and he is empowered to purchase the items up to Rs. 5,000/-. This permanent order for punishment is hereby passed."
14. A similarly worded order of punishment of even date has been passed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary in respect of Anil Kumar Yadav, the then Principal, ITI Gurgaon. Anil Kumar Yadav has been inflicted with same punishment as awarded to Raj Kumar-respondent No. 4 (R-7). It has also come on record that taking a lenient view, the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary has passed orders in respect of other delinquent C.W.P. NO. 5807 of 2010 (O&M) 10 employees, namely, Gyarsi Lal, Deputy Superintendent (since retired), Rajinder Kumar, Group Instructor (since retired), Bhagat Singh, Motor Mechanic, ITI, Gurgaon, Ram Avtar, Store Keeper, which are completely disproportionate to the charges leveled against them (R-8 to R-11). However, the aforementioned persons are not a party to the present lis.
15. In a matter where a Principal of ITI has been found to have purchased old engines and chasis, which are of the year 1979 and 1988 and has assembled the vehicle by purchasing the spare parts to sell it to the department which is expensive than the new vehicle, the punishment of stoppage of six increments with some recovery has been imposed. The question which agitates the mind of any prudent man would be whether such a view could be taken by any reasonable person.
16. In order to understand the parameters and the yardsticks adopted by the then Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana for passing the order of punishment, this Court through the learned State counsel asked Shri P.K. Gupta, Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Industrial Training and Vocational Education department, to appear before the Bench along with the concerned file to reveal the circumstances, which have necessitated taking of lenient view.
17. On 9.12.2011, Shri P.K. Gupta, Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department, appeared before this Court. As a disciplinary authority he has passed the order on 6.8.2010, inflicting the punishment on Shri Raj Kumar, directing C.W.P. NO. 5807 of 2010 (O&M) 11 stoppage of six annual grade increments and also directing lodging of FIR. To a pointed question posed by the Court as to whether the young children which is the precious assets of this country, in the form of human resource, could be put in charge of a person like Shri Raj Kumar, who is acting as Principal ITI, he preferred not to answer the question for obvious reasons. The order passed by Shri Gupta was found against the instructions contained in the Compendium of Instructions (Volume V), dealing with the disciplinary matters, released in August 2009. The circular dated 7.7.1958 has been incorporated in Volume V and the same reads as under:-
"I am directed to say that three types of situations arise when a Government servant is charge-sheeted and subjected to a departmental enquiry whether under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 or under any other rules applicable to the Government servant concerned:
(i) Either the charge is fully proved;
(ii) or the Government servant is fully exonerated;
(iii) or as most frequently happens, the case falls in the area between (i) and (ii).
Cases coming under category (iii) may be described as 'doubtful cases'.
2. No difficulty is experience in respect of cases of category (i) in case there is an element of corruption of dishonesty in the charge, instructions clearly exist that the only right penalty in such cases is dismissal. Punjab Government letter No.122-ACC-48/38539 dated the 19th July, 1948 may be referred to in this connection." C.W.P. NO. 5807 of 2010 (O&M) 12
18. It is, thus, evident from the perusal of the aforesaid instructions that in case the charge is fully proved then no difficulty is posed in cases where there is element of corruption or dishonesty in the charge proved because there are already instructions in existence and the only right penalty in such cases is dismissal. A reference has also been made to the Punjab Government letter dated 19.7.1948. In view thereof, Shri P.K. Gupta was asked to file an additional affidavit stating that how these instructions have been ignored from consideration. This Court was also compelled to issue a notice to respondent No. 4 for enhancement of the punishment which has been inflicted by order dated 6.8.2010 by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary.
19. On 9.1.2012 Shri P.K. Gupta filed a short affidavit stating that the Government instructions dated 7.7.1958 contained in the compendium of instructions (Volume-V) dealing with the disciplinary matters, released in August, 2009 were not brought to his notice by the department during the proceedings of the case.
20. In response to the notice issued by this Court for enhancement of the punishment, respondent No. 4-Raj Kumar has filed an affidavit dated 9.1.2012, stating that false and baseless allegations have been leveled by the petitioner with regard to embezzlement of public money and causing financial loss to the State exchequer. He has tried to explain that the purchase of Mahindra Jeep and TATA 407 in the year 2007 were made by the Institute Managing Committee (IMC), which consists of several members and Commissioner, Gurgaon was the Chairman and he was only its Member Secretary. There was one member for the Directorate of Technical Education, one member for Director C.W.P. NO. 5807 of 2010 (O&M) 13 General of Employment Training, District Employment Officer, G.M., District Industries Centre and 4 members from the Industries partners. The demand made in January 2007 by the Instructors was approved by him. The quotations were invited from four reputed automobile firms from which the purchases have been made earlier also. After preparing a comparative table, the IMC approved the lowest and the orders were placed. On 28.10.2007, the Commissioner, Gurgaon, granted sanction for making the payment. Even the cheques were signed by the Commissioner, Gurgaon as Chairman. According to respondent No. 4 all the procedures were duly followed in making the purchase of tools and equipments.
21. Respondent No. 4 has further submitted that in the departmental proceedings sufficient punishments have already been inflicted against him. In para 4 of the affidavit, he has given the details of all the punishments passed against him in the departmental proceedings. He has already filed a Memorial before the Governor, which is pending consideration. Even criminal proceedings have been launched against him. In para 8 of the affidavit, respondent No. 4 has submitted that he has to support his family members which consists of a housewife and two minor sons. His elder son is aged about 9 years, who is a student of 3rd Class and the second son is aged about 6 years and is a student of 1st Class. Thus, respondent No. 4 has prayed that a sympathetic view may be taken by this Court.
22. With regard to Jaivrat Sharma-respondent no. 5, the stand taken in para 6 of the preliminary submissions of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents is that after receipt of the order dated 6.8.2008 from the Lokayukata Haryana, a request C.W.P. NO. 5807 of 2010 (O&M) 14 was made by the Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education Department-respondent No. 3 to the Major, Senior Record officer, E.M.E., Records, Secundrabad (Andhra Pradesh) for clarification of the certificates of respondent No. 5. On 2.3.2009, it was reported by the said authority that respondent No. 5 had attended the Tele Communication Mechanic Apprenticeship Course at Apprentice Training School, Bhopal and M.C.E.M.E., Secundrabad from 10.10.1970 to 10.10.1973 and had been awarded a satisfactory degree of proficiency. It was also clarified that the Ministry of Defence, Directorate General of Re-settlement, vide their letter No. 1769/EQT/Trg./Res-3, dated 11.8.1983, have already given clarification regarding equivalency of qualification of post of respondent No. 5 to Tele Communication/Radio Mechanics. After receipt of the said report, the case was sent to the Chief Secretary, Haryana, for taking further action in compliance of the order of Lokayukta Haryana. Since the qualification possessed by respondent No. 5 were found equivalent to the Tele Communication/Radio Mechanic, therefore, no action was taken against him by the Government and it was accordingly informed by the Chief Secretary, Haryana to the Lokayukta, Haryana, vide letter dated 30.4.2008.
23. It is conceded as a fact that Kamlesh Kumar-respondent No. 6 was working as Personal Assistant on 7.1.1988. In para 7 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 it is also conceded that he was erroneously promoted from the post of Personal Assistant in Steno cadre to Research Assistant in clerical side on 29.1.1998 despite the fact that he lacked requisite experience of two years as Assistant in clerical side. It is C.W.P. NO. 5807 of 2010 (O&M) 15 appropriate to mention that promotion of the Stenographer/Steno- typist is regulated by the statutory rules known as the Punjab Civil Services (Promotion of Stenographers and Steno-typists) Rules, 1961. An amendment was made in the aforesaid rules in the year 1978. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 was substituted as under:-
"(1) In offices where the scale of pay of Stenographers is identical to that of Assistants, the Stenographers shall, before becoming eligible for promotion to a higher post on the clerical side, have to work as Assistant for a period of two years on some existing vacancy or by sharing the work of an Assistant.
Explanation I:- The period during which a Stenographer has before the date of issue of these rules, performed the duties of an Assistant whether in addition to his own duties or otherwise will be taken into consideration in computing the period of his training as Assistant. Explanation II:- Where there is no available vacancy of the post of Assistant for imparting training to the Stenographer, he shall be given at least one third of the work of some Assistant in addition to his own duties. The Assistant who is thus relieved of some of his work will in turn help the Stenographer in his routine duties."
24. It is, thus, evident that a Stenographer in order to earn promotion to the higher post on clerical side is required to work as an Assistant for two years on some existing vacancy or by sharing the work of an Assistant. If there is no vacancy of the Assistant available in order to earn training for a Stenographer then he has to be given 1/3 work of some Assistant in addition to his own duties. C.W.P. NO. 5807 of 2010 (O&M) 16 Respondent No. 6 did not undergo such training as was the identical position of one Shri M.R. Narang, who was working in the same department. On account of the aforesaid deficiency, his promotion was set aside by allowing CWP No. 1908 of 1998 (Kanchan Bala v. State of Haryana and others) vide judgment dated 22.7.1998. On the basis of the order passed in the aforesaid petition, respondent No. 6 was also revered to his original post of Personal Assistant because he lacked requisite experience on clerical side, vide order dated 22.12.1998 (R-2). The aforesaid order reads as under:
" Consequent upon the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1908 of 1998- Kanchan Bala Versus State of Haryana and others Sh.
Kamlesh Kumar who was promoted as Deputy
Superintendent vide orders issued endst. No.
TA/4/10/7389 dated 15.4.98 the same orders are hereby withdrawn. Now Sh. Kamlesh Kumar stands reverted to his original post of Personal Assistant."
25. It is surprising that respondent No. 6 made a representation to the respondent department taking the stand that since there is no further promotion to the higher rank in his cadre, therefore, his post of Personal Assistant be upgraded to that of Private Secretary as per precedent in the department. Despite the fact that the post of Private Secretary was not available with the department, the representation made by respondent No. 6 was accepted and the post of Personal Assistant has been upgraded to that of Private Secretary as a measure personal him by the official respondents. It is not understood as to how such a procedure could C.W.P. NO. 5807 of 2010 (O&M) 17 have been followed and any prudent person is bound to reach a conclusion that State largesse has been conferred arbitrarily on respondent No. 6. Accordingly, the action of official respondents in upgrading the post of Personal Assistant to that of Private Secretary is declared to be violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution as also violative of the judgment of this Court rendered on 22.7.1998 in CWP No. 1908 of 1998.
26. Narration of facts in respect of Raj Kumar-respondent No. 4 leave nothing to doubt that the then Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Technical Education and Industrial Training Department, committed grave error in law by awarding him the punishment of six increments and recovery of the proportionate 2/3 amount of `10,12,000/- only from the salary of respondent No. 4. The punishment order dated 6.8.2010 (R-6) passed against respondent No. 4 contravenes the instructions dated 7.7.1958, which have already been noticed in preceding para 16 above. The instructions dated 7.7.1958 clearly provides that where the charge against the delinquent is fully proved then the only right penalty in such cases is dismissal. Thus, the aforementioned instructions are applicable in the case of respondent No. 4 because in the regular departmental inquiry the charges leveled against him have been fully proved and the punishing authority also concurred with the findings of the inquiry officer. We have gone through the reply furnished by respondent No. 4 in response to the notice issued by this Court, vide order dated 9.12.2001, for enhancement of the punishment which has been inflicted by order dated 6.8.2010, and are of the considered view that the same is far from satisfactory. We have no hesitation C.W.P. NO. 5807 of 2010 (O&M) 18 to reject the submissions made by respondent No. 4.
27. As a sequel to the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The punishment awarded to respondent No. 4 is modified to the extent that he would be deemed to be dismissed from service w.e.f. 6.8.2010. The department would be entitled to recover the embezzled amount along with interest from him. In respect of other delinquent employees against whom charges have been proved in the departmental inquiry and who have been dealt with leniently vide orders Annexures R-8 to R-12, the competent authority is directed to take steps for enhancement of punishment and after following the principles of natural justice pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Similarly, the order passed on the representation made by respondent No. 6, upgrading the post of Personal Assistant to that of Private Secretary as a measure personal to him is also quashed. Consequently, he will continue working on the post of Personal Assistant instead of Private Secretary. Accordingly, the order passed by the respondent department on 22.12.1998 (R-2) has to be given full effect. The enhanced salary, if any paid to respondent No. 6 on the post of Private Secretary from the date of upgradation of post of Personal Assistant shall be recovered in easy instalments by effecting recovery to the extent of 20% from his salary.
(M.M. KUMAR) KUMAR) JUDGE (ALOK SINGH) April 17, 17, 2012 JUDGE PKapoor