1. Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar learned counsel holding brief of Sri Kapil Dev learned counsel for petitioner and the learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties.
2. Under challenge is the order dated 26th September, 1992 imposing the punishment of censure entry and for recovery to be made against petitioner. Vide interim order dated 18th November, 1992, the following order was passed:-
"Admit.
Notice of this petition on behalf of opp. parties had been accepted by the Standing Counsel.
Issue notice to opposite party no.3.
From the facts set out in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has already been punished for the lapses in question by the order dated by 3rd Nov.87. If it is so, we direct that until further orders of the court, further operation of the impugned order dated 26th Sep.92 shall remain stayed."
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that with regard to the same charges, punishment had already been effected against petitioner vide order dated 3rd November, 1987 and therefore further punishment with regard to the same charges could not have been passed against petitioner as was seen at the time of passing of interim order. Even otherwise it has been submitted that the order impugned has been passed only on the basis of some inquiry conducted by Technical Audit Cell in which petitioner was not permitted to participate. It has been submitted that thereafter the order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to petitioner.
4. Learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties on the basis of counter affidavit has submitted that the order has been passed in view of irregularities committed by petitioner for purposes of purchase of certain items. It has been submitted that prior to passing of impugned order, a show cause notice was issued to petitioner to which he had replied, which was considered prior to imposition of punishment.
5. Upon hearing learned counsel for parties and perusal of record, it is apparent that petitioner had already been punished vide order dated 3rd November, 1987 with regard to the charges levelled against him. Therefore a second punishment order is not envisaged in terms of the service regulations applicable upon the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order also indicates that punishment was imposed upon petitioner merely considering the reply submitted by him and is based entirely on the inquiry report submitted by the Technical Audit Cell. A reading of the order makes it apparent that no opportunity of hearing whatsoever was provided to petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order. Even the reply submitted by petitioner to show cause notice has not been considered and has been rejected merely on the ground that it was unsatisfactory.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is unsustainable and is therefore quashed by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 26.11.2019 prabhat