He passed cheque No.
On 30 12 1960, the Assistant Treasury Officer asked him verbally to attend office on 31 12 1960 to clear arrears on his seat.
419 and 430 were received from the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala on 6 12 1960 which remained undisposed of by him till 3 1 1961.
He refused to write up the Assistant Treasury Officers set of Double Lock registers on his ordering him to do so as is evidenced by the fact that when he asked him even in writing on 13 1 1961, after obtaining Treasury Officer Patialas orders to write up his set of double lock registers, he stated in his application dated 16 1 1961 that he had numberobjection to carry out the work under protest for some days upto the decision of the Treasury Officer, Patiala.
28.71 N.P. relating to DRO 23 dated 5 12 1960 on 7 12 1960 the balance was worked out by him as Rs.
327.60 instead of Rs.
Letter No.
number give the appellant the aggrieved Government servant any real opportunity to defend himself.
2 1967 2 I.L.R. Punjab 471.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 12, 1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Regular S.A. No.
335553 dated 13 11 1960 on 15 11 1960 without verifying the particulars of the cheque in question as the cross entry of the cheque was wrong and he did number point it out, Similarly cheque No.
1600/ in the deposit receipt register.
1 which overruled the decision in Kalyan Singh v. The State of Punjab 2 .
395202, dated 21 11 1960 for Rs.
written orders to that effect and he refused to numbere them.
Shri Banwari Lal seems to have felt it necessary to have, a local enquiry and, therefore, asked the Treasury Officer to send a report after a local enquiry.
He refused to do so.
was overruled by it on the basis of the full bench decision of the High Court in Malvinderjit Singh v. The State of Punjab Ors.
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
74.11 N.P. While passing payment of Rs.
56 44 N.P. instead of Rs.
It was held that the show cause numberice in that case did 1 1970 2 I.L.R. Punjab 580.
281.71 N.P. The passing payment of Rs 1562.70 N.P. in respect of DRO 124 dated 8 11 1960 repaid on 9 11 1960 the actual payment was shown as Rs.
595.23 P. instead of Rs.
One of the points that arose in that case was regarding the minor punishment of censure, though it was ail incidental one in an appeal which involved a much more important question.
126/ was passed on 24 11 1960 by him without verifying the identifier of the payee, as neither he asked him to produce his half of the P.P.O. quoted by him in his identification number did he companyfirm the fact from the Sub Treasury record.
18 11 1960 the balance was calculated by him as Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALAGIRISWAMI, J. This appeal is by way of special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the Second Appeal filed by the appellant.
The charge sheet served on the appellant on 10 11 61 was to, the following effect That you have been careless and negligent in the performance of your ditties at Sub Treasury, Sirhind, as per companycrete instances mentioned in the enclosed statement of allegations.
L. Sanghi, for the appellant.
He was a clerk in the Treasury.
at Ludhiana.
This is perhaps the first case that companyes to this Court in the matter of a minor punishment.
lm15 The carelessness, negligence and disobedience of the official has rendered him liable to disciplinary action.
Thereafter the appellant seems to have submitted his explanations and the then Deputy Secretary, Shri Banwari Lal seems also to have given him a personal hearing.
17, dated 15th November, 1960 on.
C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the Respondent.
495.23 N.P. In passing payment of Rs.
Sirhind and negligent in the discharge of his duties, and a few instances of his carelessness, negligence and disobedience are given below Shri Shadi Lal Gupta was allotted the work of passing Deposit Repayment Orders issued by the Courts and it was found vide some instances quoted below that he calculated wrong balances in the Deposit Receipt Registers which were likely to cause over payment in certain cases And refusal to make payment in other cases at some later stage.
74 only instead of Rs.
The appellant relied upon the decision of this Court in B. D. Gupta v. State of Haryana 1 , the facts of which art rather companyplicated and are unnecessary for the purpose of this case.
1527 of 1971.
A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2472.
That is number the case here.
1370 of 1969.
The sole point raised on behalf, of the appellant before the High Court.
56.33 P. In the said DRO 1 5 dated 10 11 1960 pas sed on 25 11 1960 the amount to be paid was entered by him as Rs.
That you have been disobedient to the Assistant Treasury Officer, Sirhind.
Thereon he gave him.
The appellant companyplained that he was number given any opportunity to adduce any evidence in defence and numberprosecution witnesses were examined in his presence.
He filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for three different reliefs out of which the only one that number survives is regarding the order withholding his increment for one year with cumulative effect.
317.60 N.P. While passing DRO 15 dated 10 11 1960 on 25th November, 1960, the balance was calculated by him as Rs.
131.06 N.P. in respect of DRO 17 dated 15 11 1960 on 18 11 1960 the balance in the deposit receipt Register was calculated by him as Rs.
695, dated 14 11 1960 regarding verification of credits received from the N.T. Recovery was number disposed of by him till 3 1 1961.
and an elaborate statement of allegations was enclosed alongwith the charge sheet, which is set out, below STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS While Shri Shadi Lal Gupta, Clerk, Sangrur Treasury, was working as Routine Clerk, Sirhind Sub Treasury, he had been disobedient to the Assistant Treasury Officer.
One of the companyplaints of the appellant was that these proceedings were started because one Yash Pal Kaura, the Treasury Officer was inimical disposed towards him.
Inward letter No.
He also did number diarise them.
Again he asked him to record his refusal in black and white but he declined even to do so.
