2 decades on, dismissal of dy director, IPR, quashed

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, December 7

More than two decades after a deputy director was dismissed from service, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dubbed as illegal the order before quashing and setting it aside.

Misuse of authority

This is a classic case where an IAS officer used his authority to deprive a person of his due promotion and benefits solely because he has developed an adversarial attitude towards the petitioner. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

“This is a classic case where an IAS officer used his authority to deprive a person of his due promotion and benefits solely because he has developed an adversarial attitude towards the petitioner,” Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma ruled.

Allowing a bunch of petitions filed in 1996 and subsequently through senior advocate GS Bal, Justice Sharma ruled petitioner Jagdip Singh Chowhan would be entitled to reinstatement and all consequential benefits from the date of his dismissal from service. He would also be entitled to promotion as joint director and his salary for the higher post would be re-fixed accordingly.

Justice Sharma also directed the payment of arrears of salary till his retirement. His retirement benefits would also be released and paid along with the interest on all arrears, including salary and pensionary benefits at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.

Justice Sharma also ruled that the petitioner’s action of impleading IAS officer PS Aujla as a party to the litigation was justified and legal. He was a proper and necessary party to decide the issue regarding allegations of malafide, prejudice and bias raised by the petitioner. The observation came as the Bench set aside the lower court’s decision of deleting Aujla’s name from the array of parties.

Justice Sharma observed the petitioner’s case was that Aujla, the then Director, Information and Public Relations, wanted one of his known person BIS Chahal to be promoted to the Joint Director’s post. As the petitioner was senior to Chahal, Aujla asked the petitioner to forego promotion as Additional Director, which he politely refused. Resultantly, Aujla proceeded to cancel the DPC meeting convened on December 17, 1990, for carrying out the promotions to which the petitioner was entitled to.

The petitioner further submitted that Aujla later managed to get a false chargesheet served upon him, levelling allegations regarding printing of additional calendars.

Justice Sharma observed once the petitioner had faced departmental inquiry, the respondents were not authorised to again serve a chargesheet relating to the same charges for which he had already been directed to remain careful in future, which itself was a punishment. It was, as such, a case of a dual prosecution with reference to same charges.