Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod Kumar Badula vs High Court For The States Of Punjab And ... on 9 May, 2013
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 1023 of 2012
Date of Decision : 9.5.2013
Vinod Kumar Badula ..... Petitioner
Versus
High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana and another ..... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present:- Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Chopra, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Petitioner was appointed as an Ahlmad in Sessions Division, Gurgaon. While he was posted as an Ahlmad and attached with the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nuh, chargesheet dated 9.8.2007 under Rule 7 read with Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 and Rule 12(2) of the Haryana Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General Condition of Service) Rules, 1997 was issued to the petitioner regarding the alleged omission and commission of the official duties on account of loss of case file titled as Aamin Versus Safeda bearing Civil Suit No. 200 dated 21.3.2006, decided on 27.1.2007. Petitioner was asked to submit his reply within 15 days of receipt of chargesheet.
Reply to the chargesheet was submitted by the petitioner on 4.9.2007, wherein he pointed out that the file has not been received by him from the Court and the matter has been brought to the notice of the Presiding Officer. Not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, Additional CWP No. 1023 of 2012 -2- Civil Judge (Senior Divison), Nuh, was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. He submitted his report dated 18.11.2008 (Annexure-P-4) holding therein the petitioner responsible for the loss of file on the ground that he being the Ahlmad of the Court and custodian of the files, is duty bound to take care of the files, which were/are related to him. Show case notice for imposing penalty of dismissal from service was served upon the petitioner, to which the petitioner submitted his reply. The District and Sessions Judge did not accept the reply submitted by the petitioner and imposed penalty of stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect, vide order dated 29.4.2009 (Annexure-P-5). Against the said order, petitioner preferred service appeal, which was considered by the Administrative Judge of this Court and was dismissed, vide order dated 10.12.2010 (Annexure-P-7), holding him responsible for the misplacement of the file on the ground that it is the duty of the petitioner to keep the files in safe custody. It was also mentioned that if the file was not received by him on 27.1.2007, the date of the decision of the suit, it was his duty to report the matter to the officer concerned within a reasonable time. He reported the non-availability of the file on 17.2.2007, which is delayed. Challenging these orders, petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition.
Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents wherein the action taken by the respondents against the petitioner has been defended. However, in the penultimate para of the written statement, it has been stated that the petitioner has, vide his letter bearing endorsement No. 773 dated 11.6.2012 of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, had sent the file of Civil Suit No. 200, dated 21.3.2006 to the office of District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, which reads as follows :-
CWP No. 1023 of 2012 -3-
" I have the honour to submit that on 9.6.2012 evening I went to Nuh court for tracing of one summary disposal register as I had received a telephonic message from Sh. Rishi Pal, formerly Ahlmad of this Sessions Division, that one summary disposal register is to be traced out immediately as Audit party was staying at Nuh for audit of fine record pertaining to Nuh Courts.
In this connection, it is submitted that register had been traced out. Further it is submitted that one file titled as 'Aamin Versus Safeeda' decided on 27.1.2002 by Sh. Harish Gupta, the then Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nuh, was also found. However, neither the order sheet nor the statement dated 27.1.2007 is signed by learned Presiding Officer.
It is further submitted that I have been awarded a penalty of stoppage of five annual increments with cumulative effect by Sh. Ramendra Jain, the then Hon'ble District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon for the loss of this very file. At present a writ petition against the said order is pending in Hon'ble High Court. Sir, as the order sheet and statement has not been signed by the learned Presiding Officer, it means the filed in question never reached the learned Presiding Officer, hence it was never received by me. File is submitted herewith."
After the reproduction of the above letter, it has been stated in the reply by the District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon-respondent No. 2 as follows :-
"It is correct that neither the statements of the parties nor the order dated 27.1.2007 bear signatures of the Presiding Officer but the alleged recovery of the file in question by the petitioner, at this stage, is shrouded by the following mysterious circumstances :-CWP No. 1023 of 2012 -4-
(i) It is not mentioned in the application dated 11.6.2012 by the petitioner as to summary register of which court and pertaining to which period, was not traceable and how the petitioner was concerned with the said register.
(ii) No report has been received in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, from any quarter about missing of the alleged summary disposal register.
(iii) From which place exactly the aforesaid register and the file in question were recovered, does not find mention in the letter dated 11.6.2012.
(iv) It is also not clear from the application dated 11.6.2012 whether or not the petitioner had obtained prior permission before leaving the station on 11.6.2012.
That aforementioned circumstances are required to be considered by the Hon'ble High Court while deciding the instant writ petition."
I have considered the matter and am of the view that the petitioner in the light of the fact that the file, which has been traced, clearly depicts that neither the statement of the parties nor the order dated 27.1.2007 bears the signature of the Presiding Officer, which concludes that the stand of the petitioner that he had not received the case file from the Court is correct. It cannot be said that the petitioner would have gained some benefit by not producing the case file, especially when the case was withdrawn by the plaintiff. Further perusal of the inquiry report, the punishment order and the order of appellate authority show that there is no direct evidence on the basis of which it can be held that the file was received by the petitioner, but he had all through been held responsible for the reason that he being the Ahlmad of the Court and custodian of the files is duty bound to take care of the files, CWP No. 1023 of 2012 -5- which were/are related to him.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, impugned orders cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.
This writ petition is allowed. Order dated 29.4.2009 (Annexure- P-5) and order dated 10.12.2010 (Annexure-P-7) are hereby set aside. Petitioner is held entitled to all consequential benefits. Arrears be calculated and released to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 9.5.2013 sjks