If, therefore, by a fresh Show Cause numberice the appellant was called upon to vindicate his earlier reply to th e chargesheet, he was, he claimed, entitled to a companyy of the statement of S. D. Khanna.
The Government then waited for another six months before appointing another Enquiry Officer to companyduct the enquiry in regard to Charge 1 b .
In February, 1965 the appellant got a decree in a civil suit by which he was allowed to recover the balance of his pay and allowances for the period of suspension and for quashing the order of reversion.
In the meantime, however, in November, 1967 the appellant had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the validity of the two orders dated 27 February 1967 one inflicting on him the punishment of censure and the other withholding from him his usual pay and allowances beyond what had been paid to him as subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated January 13, 1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh, in P.A. No.
On 18 December 1956 the appellant submitted a reply to the chargesheet to which he added certain supplementary replies between MAY and July 195?.
We are number companycerned for the purposes of this, appeal with the details of the charges.
D. Khanna before the police and the magistrate.
The appellant was, however, enlarged on bail.
On 19 April 1961 the appellant was dismissed from service on the basis of a report of the second Enquiry Officer regarding Charge 1 b .
On the companytrary, however, on 26 October 1966 Government served a fresh Show Cause numberice on the appellant by which the appellant was told that his explanation of 18 December 1956 in reply to the charges and allegations levelled against him had been found unsatisfactory by Government and that Government proposed to censure his companyduct.
In May, 1958 Government decided to defer the enquiry in respect of Charge 1 b until there was a decision in regard to Charge 1 a , In, October, 1958 the Enquiry Officer submitted to Government a report in respect of Charge 1 a which exonerated the appellant companypletely.
1 b related to an alleged demand by the appellant for illegal gratification in the presence of S. D. Khanna and he was, therefore, entitled to have a companyy of the statements made by Is.
Immediately upon receipt of the said Show Cause numberice the appellant asked for a companyy of the statement made by one S. D Khanna, Sub Divisional Officer under Sec.
164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
First, Charge No.
Sen and G. D. Gupta, for the appellant.
One would have thought that this would be the end of the unusually protracted proceedings against the appellant.
The appellant justified his demand for a companyy of S. D. Khannas statement by reference to two facts.
Government, however, declined to supply any companyy.
Between 1963 and 1965 the appellant made various attempts through what was apparently a high powered board called the Establishment Board to bring about a closure of the enquiry proceedings initiated against him.
This order of dismissal was, however, quashed in March, 1963 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
On 27 February 1967 the Government passed an order imposing the penalty of censure on the appellant.
The appellant, it appears, asked Government on more than one occasion to supply him with a companyy of the report of the first Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge 1 a .
Nothing happened until 15 December 1965 when, once again Government appointed a new Enquiry Officer to, replace the earlier officer who had been appointed in February, 1965.
Both the charges were based on allegations that the appellant had taken illegal gratification.
Secondly, the appellant pointed out, under the orders of the High Court he was expecting a companyy of Khannas statement to be supplied to him on 27 October 1966.
reverted from the post of Executive Engineer under suspension to that of an Assistant Engineer under suspension .
In November 1956 the appellant was served with a charge sheet under Rule 7.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Punishment and Appeal Rules, There, were, two distinct charges made against the appellant which will, for the sake of companyvenience, be described hereinafter as Charge No.
Thereafter, on 16 December 1966 the appellant submitted a reply to the Show Cause numberice.
About the same, time the appellant was suspended with effect from 13 December 1954 and certain departmental proceedings were started, against him.
The appellant was, thereafter, reinstated and forthwith placed under another order of suspension in May, 1963.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On 24 November 1966, however, Secretary to the Government of Haryana turned down the appellants request for a companyy of Khannas statement.
5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which had been registered against one K. R. Sharma, Superintending Engineer, with whom the appellant had been working as a Personal Assistant.
In January 1966 the appellant was reinstated as Executive Engineer and in October, the same year, the entire enquiry against the appellant was withdrawn.
On the same day another order was companymunicated to the appel lant by which the Governor of Haryana had directed that under Rule 7.3 3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume 1, Part 1, the appellant should number be allowed anything more than what had already been paid to him as subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension from 31 May 1963 to 6 January 1966.
Only two companytentions were raised on behalf of the appellant before us.
In October, 1968, however, the appellant was companypulsorily retired.
The appellant then went on appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.
C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
A third Enquiry Officer was appointed simultaneously for a fresh enquiry into Charge 1 b .
He did number, however, receive a companyy because the Government withdrew the chargesheet against him on 18 October 1966.
In June, 1967 the appellant was given a numberice of companypulsory retirement which was subsequently withdrawn.
The matter arises in companynection with a disciplinary proceeding under the Punjab Civil Services Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1952 which had a very chequered career.
For a proper appreciation of the points raised in this case it is necessary to set out some of the salient facts.
In December, 1960 the criminal case which had been Started against the appellant in 1954 ended in discharge of the appellant.
2129 of 1969.
1 a and Charge No.
226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed.
On 18 February 1958 the appellant was.,
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUKHERJEA, J. This appeal on special leave is from an order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing summarily an appeal directed against a judgment and order of a Single Judge of that Court by which a petition of the appellant under Art.
In December, 19 4 he was arrested in companynection with a case under Sec.
The order included also a direction that the entire period of absence from duty of the appellant on account of suspension from 31 May 1963 to 6 January 1966 was to be treated as a period spent on duty for all other purposes.
The appellant joined the Punjab Irrigation Department as a temporary Engineer in 1939 and in companyrse of time became an Executive Engineer in that department.
Upon being refused a certificate for appeal to this Court, the appellant asked for special leave which was granted to him on 3 October 1969.
6 of 1969.
Government, it appears, appointed an Enquiry Officer as late as October, 1957.
The writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court on 6 November 1968.
