HC disposes of cases filed against Haryana govt employee for not serving butter chickenObserving that “nature and gravity of the charges do not appear to be such that petitioner should be meted out with such harsh and disproportionate punishment as is contemplated”, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has disposed of a petition filed by a Haryana government employee, who challenged the chargesheet filed against him in October 2010 for not serving “butter chicken” to one set of the guests in a gathering while providing the same to the other guests.
As per the petitioner Jai Chand — then serving as the housekeeper at Haryana Raj Bhavan — seven years later of the chargesheet, another chargesheet dated December 15, 2017, was issued charging him with misbehaviour, use of foul language against another official, who was posted as a caretaker at the Haryana Raj Bhavan. An inquiry officer was appointed who rendered his findings against the petitioner leading to issuance of show-cause notices dated December 20, 2017, proposing to award him major punishment under Sub-Rule (c) (1) of Rule-7 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 2016.
As per the order, the competent Officer, Secretary to the then Governor in February 2016, had made recommendations over the inquiry report of Jai Chand, which read as, “…Mainly the charges revolve around the conduct and behavior of the employee. But I have seen his work since July 2014. Initially, there were some minor complaints about his behavior for which he had been advised personally to mend his conduct and to improve the behavior. Now, for the last many months nothing serious against his behavior and conduct has been reported to me or nothing came to my knowledge. Therefore, I don’t see any justification in imparting him any major punishment at this stage i.e. after a gap of about three and a half years. Therefore, please examine as to what legal course is available now to be adopted to dispose of these cases…”
After hearing the matter, the bench of Justice Arun Monga said: “It seems that the above recommendations did not go down well, though subsequently petitioner was simply transferred vide order dated June 27, 2011 from Raj Bhawan to the Hospitality Department, and that is where the matter rests.”
Justice Monga said the petitioner is currently serving without there being any further complaints qua his behavior or performance in work. Notwithstanding, it seems that in order to overcome the hurdle of his satisfactory work and there being no complaint pending against him since 2010, as a bolt from the blue, the second charge-sheet dated December 15, 2017, was issued against the petitioner with using derogatory abusive/unparliamentarily language with caretaker.
Reverting to the allegations qua the petitioner, the High Court said: “It would not be out of place to note here that, concededly, he served as a Housekeeper. His services are meant for housekeeping only and qua the same, there is no quibble. There is nothing on record to show that housekeeper is also supposed to carry out the functions of a butler. To that extent, therefore, the allegation that he did not serve the same food to both sets of the guests leading to certain embarrassment, as well as, inhospitality on the part of the hosts who had invited the dignitaries at the function in question, cannot be entirely attributed to the petitioner alone, since he is merely a housekeeper.”
“The contents of the menu and service of food in terms thereof is a contributory process, wherein more than two sets of people are involved and, to hold the petitioner solely responsible for any faux pas in its entirety, by concluding that he did not serve same part of the menu to the one set of the people does not prima facie, seems impalatable,” the High Court added.
The High Court disposed of the petition with an expectation of the respondents (State of Haryana and others) that pursuant to the submission of petitioner’s reply to the show-cause notices, a wholesome view will be taken.
“Proposed orders which are required to be passed shall reflect and take into consideration the recommendations made by the Secretary to the Hon’ble Governor and the interim observations of this Court…It will be appreciated if comments of the Head of the department i.e., Director Hospitality are also sought since it is stated that petitioner is currently serving at Haryana Niwas, Sector 3, Chandigarh of which the day-to-day operations and management are handled by the Director Hospitality,” the High Court added.