Punjab-Haryana High Court
U.H.B.V.N.L & Ors vs Ram Kumar on 28 August, 2014
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 1413 of 2014 (O&M )
DATE OF DECISION : 28.08.2014
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others
.... APPELLANTS
Versus
Ram Kumar
.... RESPONDENT
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present : Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Advocate,
for the appellants.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) This intra court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated February 26, 2014, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition (CWP No. 2944 of 1992) filed by Ram Kumar (respondent herein) quashing the order dated April 10, 1991 (Annexure P-4) awarding the punishment of `Censure', being illegal and contrary to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Dr. K.G. Tiwari v. State of Haryana, 2002 (4) SLR 329, and directing the appellants to pay consequential benefits to the respondent as if no punishment was ever awarded.
Though there is a delay of 117 days in filing the appeal and the DASS NAROTAM 2014.09.01 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No. 1413 of 2014 ( O&M ) -2- appellants have filed application (CM No.3152-LPA of 2014) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard learned counsel for the appellants on merits, and have gone through the order, passed by the learned Single Judge.
Learned counsel for the appellants very fairly admitted that in the present case, charge sheet dated September 29, 1989 (Annexure P-2) was issued against the respondent proposing to impose major punishment under Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules') read with Regulation 10 of the Haryana State Electricity Board (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as `the Regulations'). The respondent submitted detailed reply (Annexure P-3) to the said charge sheet. On considering the said reply and finding the same as unsatisfactory, the competent authority straight-way imposed minor punishment of `Censure', as is evident from the order dated April 10, 1991 (Annexure P-4). The respondent challenged the said order by filing appeal, which was dismissed and communicated to the respondent vide letter dated January 24, 1992 (Annexure P-5).
The respondent filed the writ petition, challenging the aforesaid orders, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge, while holding that when inquiry was initiated for awarding major punishment and charge sheet was issued, then after considering reply to the charge sheet, even the minor punishment could not be imposed straight-way without following the DASS NAROTAM 2014.09.01 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No. 1413 of 2014 ( O&M ) -3- procedure under Rule 8 of the Rules. Secondly, in the present case, minor punishment of `Censure' was imposed upon the respondent, without recording any reason, by merely saying that reply to the charge sheet has been considered and found unsatisfactory. In this regard, it has been held by the learned Single Judge that when the charge sheet issued to the respondent proposing imposition of major penalty was found unsatisfactory, neither any further opportunity was afforded to the respondent to explain as to why the minor punishment be not imposed upon him, nor any speaking order was passed. In view of these admitted facts, the learned Single Judge, while relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Dr. K.G. Tiwari's case (supra) and other decisions of this Court in State of Punjab v. Manphul Singh, 1986 (1) SLR 484, Satish Kumar Sharma v. PSEB, 1989 (5) SLR 150 and Gurparkash Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 2009 (8) SLR 36, has held that imposition of minor punishment of `Censure' in the present case is wholly illegal and arbitrary.
Learned counsel for the appellant could not controvert the aforesaid factual and legal position. Even the Haryana State Electricity Board has amended Clause 10 of the Regulations to the extent that if an employee has been charge sheeted under the Regulations proposing to impose major punishment and on receipt of his reply to the charge sheet, if the competent authority is of the opinion that no major punishment can be imposed, it may dispense with holding of regular enquiry and straight-way DASS NAROTAM 2014.09.01 12:12 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No. 1413 of 2014 ( O&M ) -4- impose minor punishment, as laid down under the Regulations, by passing a speaking order. In the present case, undisputedly, neither an opinion was framed by the competent authority that no major punishment can be awarded and the holding of regular enquiry is dispensed with, nor any notice of hearing was issued to the respondent, before imposing the minor punishment, and that too by passing a non-speaking order. Thus, from all the angles, the punishment of `Censure' imposed upon the respondent as a minor punishment is not sustainable, and the same has rightly been quashed by the learned Single Judge.
No merit. Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
August 28, 2014 ( ARUN PALLI )
ndj JUDGE
DASS NAROTAM
2014.09.01 12:12
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document