27 years on, Punjab and Haryana High Court rescues 2 engineers fired from job over Rs 1.22 crore ‘excess’ bills

“However, as the matter has spanned over three decades, and the petitioners must be at their twilight days, therefore, a Mandamus is passed upon the authority concerned to, after affording due opportunity of hearing to their authorised representatives, as the case may be objections already filed by them, pass a period of six weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of this order,” the order read. 

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari directed the competent authority to reconsider the matter and afford the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

The high court, however, noted that the petitioners had already attained the age of superannuation, and therefore, the question of reinstatement or challenge to suspension had become infructuous.

Joined in 1994, dismissed in 1997

The petitioner, who joined in 1994, was posted as an executive engineer and was in charge of the construction of an approach road to a high-level bridge over the Beas River. He was also responsible for overseeing the ongoing project and sanctioning pending bills.

In this regard, the petitioner approved six running bills amounting to about Rs 1.67 crore. However, the superintending engineer, dissatisfied with the work, ordered a re-measurement through a Junior Engineer.

Eventually, a report was submitted stating that an excess payment of about Rs 1.22 crore up to the 16th running bill had been made, which was also endorsed by three sub-divisional engineers.

As a result, a complaint was made to higher authorities, leading to the suspension of the petitioners, Shingar Chand and M S Grewal, in December 1995, along with a junior engineer.

A charge sheet was issued in 1996, and an inquiry was conducted. The inquiry report held most of the charges proved and was supplied to the petitioners. Thereafter, the dismissal order was passed in May 1999.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed a case before the high court challenging this dismissal order. 

‘Termination, administrative function’

• The high court pointed out that the exercise of powers to terminate an employee from service is ordinarily an administrative function.
• It was further added that it assumes the character of a quasi-judicial function if it is preceded by an inquiry into the allegations of indiscipline and misconduct.
• The court also mentioned that the dismissal order is an analysis of objections, and the golden rule of audi alteram partem (here the other side). 
• Once the authority decides to hold an enquiry, it is under their statutory obligation to examine the legality of the chargesheet, as followed by the enquiry officer, and adherence to the procedural safeguard provided under the service rules, governing the service conditions of the said employee.
• The high court further added that the disciplinary authority is also required to assess the validity of the enquiry report and the veracity of the evidence led by the respective parties. 
• Therefore, any order passed in pursuance of such exercise of powers assumes the role of a quasi-judicial function. 

• The said dismissal order, the court found, stems from the subject matter at hand and is required to go through the rigours of judicial scrutiny. 
• The court ultimately held that the decision-making authority was at fault, since they failed to record reasons and also neglected to comprehend and address the objections filed by the petitioner.
• It was highlighted by the court that extending an opportunity to furnish objections to the enquiry report is not a mere formality mechanical process. 
• The court emphasised that it ensures the eradication of the remotest possibility of arbitrariness and miscarriage of justice. 
• However, the high court noted that both the petitioners have already attained the age of superannuation and therefore, the request concerning the reinstatement and quashing the order of suspension has already become redundant.