Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Jagrup Singh on 23 April, 2013
Author: A.N. Jindal
Bench: A.N. Jindal
RSA No.1100 of 1990 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1100 of 1990 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.04.2013
State of Punjab
... Appellant
Versus
Jagrup Singh
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL
Present : Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. A.G., Punjab,
for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
A.N. Jindal, J. (Oral)
This is defendant-appellant's (hereinafter referred as 'the defendant') regular second appeal against the judgment of reversal.
The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred as 'the plaintiff') was posted as Social Studies Master in Government High School, Lehragaga. He was served with a show cause notice dated 03.07.1981, alleging that he was found absent from the school on 12.12.1980. After receiving reply to the show cause notice, major penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon him vide order dated 02.02.1982. The plaintiff challenged the said order by filing a suit while claiming that the same was passed without holding a regular enquiry and without providing him opportunity to lead the evidence.
RSA No.1100 of 1990 (O&M) 2
Upon notice, the defendant filed written statement while denying all the allegations levelled by the plaintiff.
From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the order dated 02.02.1982 of DPI Schools, Punjab, stopping the increment of the plaintiff is illegal, null and void etc., as alleged in paragraph 4 of the plaint? OPP
2. Whether the suit is within time? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff served a valid notice on the defendant before filing the suit? OPP
4. Relief.
The trial Court, vide judgment dated 13.11.1987, dismissed the suit. However, the first Appellate Court, vide judgment dated 22.01.1990, accepted the appeal and decreed the suit.
Heard. Admittedly, stoppage of one annual grade increment of the plaintiff with cumulative effective is a major penalty. Before passing such order, the defendant was required to hold a regular enquiry against the plaintiff, but that was not done in this case. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, 1991 (1) RSJ 413, wherein it was observed as under:-
"5. The gamut of this procedure was not gone through. Therefore, the issuance of the notice and consideration of the explanation is not a procedure in accordance with Rules 8 and 9. Obviously, the disciplinary authority felt that the enquiry into minor penalty is not necessary and adhering to the principles of natural justice the show cause notice and on receipt of the reply from the delinquent officer passed the impugned order imposing penalty thinking it to be a minor penalty. If it is considered, as stated earlier, that it would be only a minor penalty, the procedure followed certainly meets the test of the principles of natural justice and it would be a sufficient compliance with the procedure. In view of the RSA No.1100 of 1990 (O&M) 3 finding that the impugned order is a major penalty certainly then a regular enquiry has got to be conducted and so the impugned order is clearly illegal. The trial Court rightly granted the decree. The judgment and the decree of the High Court is vitiated by manifest illegality. At this distance of time it is not expedient to direct an enquiry under Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the judgment and decree of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored but in the circumstances without costs."
The judgment of Kulwant Singh's case (supra) has been followed by this Court in case Secretary to Government, Punjab, Transport Department, Chandigarh & others Vs. Amar Nath & another, 2008 (4) RSJ 284, wherein it was observed as under under:-
"It is not in dispute that even though punishment imposed is a major penalty, procedure contemplated under Rule 8 of the Rules, has not been followed at all. No charge-sheet was ever served upon the respondent- plaintiff. Statement of imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour or the list of documents and list of witnesses was never served upon the respondent-plaintiff. The respondent-plaintiff was never provided any opportunity to file the written statement. No enquiry as contemplated by the rules was ever ordered or initiated not to say of conduct against the respondent-plaintiff. The impugned orders imposing major penalty are, thus, totally illegal, invalid and without any authority of law. Both the learned Courts below have rightly set aside the punishment imposed upon the respondent-plaintiff. This case is squarely covered by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. The State of Punjab, 1991 (1) RSJ 413."
Similar view was taken by this Court in case Smt. Tripta Kumari Vs. State of Haryana and another, 2012 (1) SCT 455, wherein it was observed as under:-
"8. The short question that would arise for consideration is whether the procedure adopted by the respondents to impose this penalty without holding an enquiry is legal and property. The answer to this question would depend upon the fact whether the penalty imposed is major or minor penalty. If the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is major penalty, then respondents were under legal obligation to hold the enquiry before imposing this punishment. The RSA No.1100 of 1990 (O&M) 4 issue, in my view, is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1991 (2) SCT 30 (SC) 9, has held that stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect falls within the meaning of 5 (v) of the Punishment and Appeals Rules and would amount to major penalty and, thus, regular enquiry would be a must to impose this penalty. Without enquiry, no punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, as such, could be ordered. Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules clearly envisages the procedure to conduct an enquiry into the misconduct before ordering stoppage of increment with cumulative effect."
Thus, in the light of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the opinion that necessary enquiry was required to be held before imposing penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. As such, the first Appellate Court appears to have taken right view of the matter. The question remains no more res integra and it is settled by now that penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and such a penalty could not be imposed without holding a regular enquiry.
Consequently, this Court is of the view that no fault could be found in the impugned judgment.
No substantial question of law arises for determination. Dismissed.
23.04.2013
ajp [ A.N.Jindal ]
Judge