Jaishree Thakur JUDGMENT
Jaishree Thakur, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been preferred seeking to challenge the findings of the inquiry report and for writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 3.9.2013 by which punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed by respondent No. 1.
2. In brief, the facts are that the petitioner was appointed to PCS (Executive Branch) in April, 1989. In the year 2003, the petitioner was appointed as an Electoral Registration Officer with the last date of filing of nomination papers fixed as 19.6.2003 and as per Section 32(3) of the State Election Commission Act, 1994, votes could be deleted or included up to the last date of filing of the nomination papers. An application was received in the office of the Electoral Registration Officer for deletion of 140 votes of village Said Mubarak. On the basis of the verification report, 118 votes were deleted out of the electoral roll, as the persons mentioned therein were either not found residing in the village or their names have been registered in other constituency or had died. A supplementary list of deleted votes of Said Mubarak was prepared and sent to the Returning Officer/BDPO on 19.6.2003 that is on the last date of filing of nomination. A complaint was made by one Jaswant Singh, who was a defeated candidate and whose named was never deleted, to the effect that 120 votes were deleted from the basic roll of 1998 and the said list was brought to the notice of the candidates only in the morning of 29.6.2003. Thereafter, a letter dated 23.7.2003 was written by the State Election Commission to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, for directing the SDM to send an official dealing with the subject on 24.7.2003 with the record pertaining to the deletion of votes. The record was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Gurdaspur, by the petitioner on 26.7.2003 that is two days after the due date.
3. On the basis of the alleged irregularities in the voter list pertaining to village Said Mubarak, delay in sending the record to the office of the State Election commission, amongst another charge, the petitioner was served with a Memo dated 10.8.2004. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply and brought the factual aspect of the matter to the notice of the authorities. Thereafter, a charge sheet dated 7.10.2005 was issued to the petitioner at the instance of the State Election Commission, Punjab, and Shri S.R. Ladhar, IAS, Commissioner, Jalandhar, was appointed as an Inquiry Officer who submitted his report to the Chief Secretary, Punjab on 1.7.2008. It was alleged that during the course of inquiry no evidence was led by the prosecution to prove the charge against the petitioner. The BDPO, who was the Returning Officer and the most crucial witness, did not appear to prove the alleged charge. The matter was referred to the Punjab Public Service Commission seeking approval to award major penalty under Rule 5(v) to (ix) as mentioned in the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1970 for short (the Rules of 1970). As the Commission did not agree with the imposition of punishment in the first instance, the matter was again sent for reconsideration and the Commission reiterated its stand. However, a decision was taken by the Cabinet of Ministers to impose a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, vide impugned order. Aggrieved against that, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition.
4. Mr. D.V. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein, contends that the impugned order of punishment imposed upon the petitioner of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is wholly unwarranted and deserves to be set aside. It is argued that the punishment has been imposed after an inordinate delay of five years on completion of the inquiry, while submitting that there was non-compliance of Rule 24 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, which clearly shows that whenever the Commission is consulted regarding any punishment to be imposed, as has been done in the i........