Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurchran Singh Conductor vs State Of Punjab on 10 April, 2013
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
R.S.A. No. 1849 of 1989 (O&M)
Date of decision: April 10, 2013
Gurchran Singh Conductor
.. Appellant
Vs.
State of Punjab
.. Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal
Present: Mr. Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
A.N. Jindal, J
The trial court vide judgment dated 12.11.1987 had decreed the suit of the plaintiff while observing that the order of the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur, bearing No.17574-76 dated 30.8.1983 withholding three annual increments of the plaintiff with cumulative effect was illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to the said increments. The first appellate court while reversing the judgment, dismissed the suit on 15.2.1989.
The following substantial question of law arises for determination in this case :-
"Whether the penalty awarding the stoppage of increment with cumulative effect amounts to major penalty attracting regular enquiry and a show cause notice regarding imposition of penalty?"
The uncontroverted facts, which could be culled out from the pleadings of the parties, are that the plaintiff was a conductor No. 185 in the R.S.A. No. 1849 of 1989 (O&M) -2- Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur and vide order dated 30.8.1983, as referred to above, he was imposed penalty of withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect. The stand of the plaintiff was that no show cause notice was served upon him before passing the order of penalty. In this regard, the record file (Ex.P1) was produced in the court, which on examination indicated that there was no document, on the basis of which it could be held that a show cause notice was actually served upon the plaintiff. Even if, it has ever been dispatched to the plaintiff, then there should have been some receipt regarding the issuance of show cause notice but no such receipt has been proved on the record. Mere fact that one office copy of the show cause notice is on the file itself is no ground that the show cause notice was actually served upon the plaintiff. Even otherwise, no regular enquiry as envisaged under the rules had been conducted.
The argument of the learned counsel for the State that prior to 1982, the penalty of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect was considered as minor penalty, therefore, there was no requirement of conducting enquiry by the appellants.
I do not find myself in agreement with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the State. It has been observed in Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab 1991 (2) SCT 30 that penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect falls within the category of major penalty and those were also applicable to the cases of the penalty as imposed prior to the passing of the judgment.
Consequently, this court hods that penalty imposed by the State in violation of the the rules and without issuing show cause notice regarding R.S.A. No. 1849 of 1989 (O&M) -3- imposing of the penalty, was violative and the said order of penalty would be treated as nonest in the eyes of law.
As regards the question of limitation, it was observed by this Court in case State of Punjab vs. Ram Singh 1986 (3) S.L.R. 379 that a void order could be ignored and there was no limitation for challenging the said order. Similar observations were made in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Devi Ram 1985 (1) S.L.R. 787. Thus, this order being nonest could be ignored. The provisions of limitation Act are not attracted.
In the light of the aforesaid discussions, this court holds the substantial question of law in favour of the appellant.
Resultantly, this appeal is accepted, impugned judgment is set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is restored. The plaintiff-respondent would be entitled to all the consequential benefits arising therefrom.
April 10, 2013 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge