Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Santosh Saini vs State Of Haryana & Another on 11 February, 2013
Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
CWP No. 12512 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 12512 of 2010
Date of decision: 11.02.2013
Smt. Santosh Saini
...... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana & another
..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr. Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
.....
TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J.
The petitioner, who is working on the post of Supervisor under the Department of Women and Child Development, State of Haryana has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the enquiry proceedings as also the final order dated 10.03.2010 (Annexure P-14) passed by respondent No.1, whereby a penalty of stoppage of four increments without cumulative effect has been imposed upon her.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Supervisor in the Women and Child Development Department, State of Haryana on 02.06.1994. On 07.08.2007, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987. The precise CWP No. 12512 of 2010 -2- charges leveled against the petitioner were to the following effect:
1. "It is your duty that you have to supervise the Aganwari centre under your jurisdiction with diligently. However, it came in the notice of the office that in the Anganwaries of village Badagaon no entries has been made in the supervisor register regarding preparation of less ration.
2. That for implementation of the Program for Child and Women and for increasing the participations of women, the Haryana Govt. has constituted a committee of women in every village, which is named as Village Level Committee. This village level committee has been constituted for preparation of ration in the Anganwari centre and the amount would be paid by the Government through this department. In programme it is also mentioned that the Anganwari workers would not participate in the purchase of ration. However, during supervision it is found that Smt. Kamlesh, Anganwari Worker, village Badagaon, who is under you, is involved in the purchase of ration. Regarding that you did not inform to the higher officials, which is a serious mistake.
From the aforesaid it is apparent that Smt. Santosh, supervisor has not performed her duty diligently and because of that she made herself liable for departmental action."
The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet. Finding the same to be unsatisfactory, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold a regular departmental enquiry. Enquiry report was furnished by the Enquiry Officer at annexure P-7 returning findings against the petitioner. Having accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated CWP No. 12512 of 2010 -3- 17.11.2008 (Annexure P-11) contemplating the imposition of punishment of four annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause notice and after having been afforded an opportunity of hearing, an order dated 19.06.2009 (Annexure P-12) was passed by the Director, Women and Child Development Department, State of Haryana, imposing the major penalty of punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner availed of her alternative remedy in terms of filing a statutory appeal and upon consideration of the same, the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, respondent No.1 has modified the order of major penalty dated 19.06.2009 (Annexure P-12) and has passed the order dated 10.03.2010 (Annexure P-14) in terms of imposing the punishment of stoppage of four increments without cumulative effect.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner was at pains in referring to the statements recorded during the course of enquiry proceedings to contend that the Enquiry Officer while holding the petitioner at guilty has proceeded on conjectures and surmises. It has been argued that the Enquiry Officer has not appreciated the statements of the witnesses in the correct perspective. A vague assertion has also been raised to the effect that proper procedure was not followed during the course of the enquiry and as such, there has been a violation of the statutory provisions contained in the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. In terms of adverting to order CWP No. 12512 of 2010 -4- dated 16.12.2009 at annexure P-15, a plea of discrimination has also sought to be raised, inasmuch as, it has been argued that the Child Development and Project Officer namely Baljeet Kaur against whom the finger had actually been pointed by the Enquiry Officer has been simply issued a warning and as such, the petitioner has been made a scapegoat.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State would argue that due procedure prescribed under the Punishment and Appeal Rules had been adhered to during the enquiry proceedings in which the petitioner had been held guilty. Learned State counsel would even refer to the specific pleadings in the written statement to the effect that the petitioner was duly associated with the enquiry proceedings. That apart, it has been argued on behalf of the State that the petitioner has been held guilty as regards the specific allegations of the supplementary nutrition ration being prepared at the concerned Anganwari Centre in a lesser quantity, whereas entries of full/complete ration having been made in the stock register. Learned State counsel would argue that the petitioner has failed in her duty while holding the post of Supervisor over the Anganwari Centre and as such, there would be no scope of interference insofar as the impugned order of punishment is concerned.
The scope of interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters relating to interference in administrative orders imposing punishments is rather limited. Judicial review would be limited to the decision CWP No. 12512 of 2010 -5- making process and not to the decision itself. The contention raised by the learned counsel regarding the impugned orders being illegal, arbitrary and without application of judicial mind have not been substantiated. Mere bald and vague assertion made in regard thereto, can not be made the basis of setting aside the impugned orders. Neither in the pleadings nor at the stage of arguments, the petitioner has been able to show the precise procedural impropriety that has occurred in passing the orders assailed by him. The Appellate Authority while passing the impugned order dated 10.03.2010 has specifically noticed that the official record shows that the petitioner had been associated with the enquiry proceedings. Even otherwise, this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction is not to act as an Appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that the finding of fact reached by the departmental authorities can not be re-opened or questioned by adverting to the evidence on record. In the light of the facts of the present case, it can not be held that there was no evidence at all. It is not for this Court to re-appreciate and re-appraise evidence.
Even the plea of discrimination raised by the petitioner is wholly misplaced. The order dated 16.12.2009 at annexure P-15, whereby the Child Development and Project Officer namely Baljeet Kaur had been issued a warning, only is in relation to some other case, wherein enquiry had been held with regard to short supply of stationary items to the Anganwaris. Such order has no relevance insofar as the departmental proceedings conducted against the petitioner which have CWP No. 12512 of 2010 -6- finally culminated in the passing of the final impugned order dated 10.03.2010 (Annexure P-14).
The Appellate Authority seemingly has taken a lenient view and has modified the order of imposition of a major penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect to an order of stoppage of four increments without cumulative effect. I find no basis that would warrant interference in the passing of such order.
For the reasons recorded, the present writ petition is dismissed.
February 11, 2013 (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) harjeet JUDGE