Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhram Pal Singh vs Unknown on 30 January, 2013
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
C.W.P. No. 12497 of 2012 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 12497 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 30.1.2013
Sukhram Pal Singh
.. Petitioner
v.
HPGCL and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. J. K. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
This order will dispose of four petitions bearing CWP Nos. 12497, 21711, 22336 and 22519 of 2012, as common questions of law and facts are involved.
The petitioners herein are working as Firemen with Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. They are aggrieved of the orders dated 16.5.2012, vide which the appeals preferred by the petitioners against imposition of punishment and down-grading of their Annual Confidential Reports, were rejected.
The facts of the case are that the petitioners herein were issued charge-sheets for various acts of omission and commission, such as refusal to accept the uniform, indulging in making complaints against the superiors, making statements before the press regarding working of the establishment and creating indiscipline, nuisance and insubordination in the office. Initially, after due enquiry, the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect. Certain adverse remarks were also made in the Annual Confidential Reports. The C.W.P. No. 12497 of 2012 [2] appeals filed by the petitioners were rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioners sought to argue that the enquiry officer in his report specifically held that the charges against the officials were not proved, still the punishing authority without recording any dissent, had gone to the extent of imposing punishment. For the same incident, even the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioners have also been spoiled. In support of the arguments, reliance was placed upon State of Haryana v. Karan Singh, 2002(1) RSJ 109; Davinder Singh ASI v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) RSJ 12 and Chaman Lal Goyal v. State of Punjab and another, 2011(4) RSJ 508.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders. As far as non-acceptance of the enquiry report and consequently imposition of penalty by the disciplinary authority is concerned, the fact is that there is no denial that the petitioners had refused to receive the uniform, had gone to the press making statements against the establishment and further they had been indulging in making complaints levelling serious allegations against their superiors, which were ultimately found to be baseless. In the light of the aforesaid undisputed facts on record, in my opinion, mere penalty of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect cannot be said to be disproportionate.
Though imposition of penalty in a departmental enquiry and recording of comments in the Annual Confidential Report are altogether different aspects, but still as is evident from the impugned orders dated 16.5.2012, even the issue regarding recording of adverse remarks has also been dealt with appropriately by the appellate authority. The relevant part thereof is extracted below:
"It is worthwhile mentioned here that as per Chief Secy. to Govt. of Haryana instructions issued vide no. 60/4/87-S(1)-A dated 14.8.1987, representation against adverse remarks should be entertained only if, it is received within 45 days from the date of receipt of letter communicating adverse remarks to the concerned officer/officials. Though, Sh. Sukram Pal Singh, C.W.P. No. 12497 of 2012 [3] Fireman had submitted his representation regarding expunging of adverse remarks after the expiry of the 45 days, despite of delay, the competent authority i.e. Chief Engineer/PTPS-2 HPGCL Panipat considered the representation regarding expunging of adverse remarks on merits and rejected the same having no substance in it on 5.8.2008. As far as the contention of the official that the punishment of downgrading of his ACR for the period 2008-2009 imposed upon him was not mentioned in the Show Cause Notice is concerned the same is not correct. The ACR has been downgraded as a consequence of the punishment awarded vide order dated 27.7.2009 in terms of the State Govt. instructions issued vide Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana Letter No. 2/19/2001-2GS-I dated 22.10.2001 duly adopted by HPGCL vide memo no. Ch-21/HPGCL-143 dated 30.11.2001 and not as punitive measure. Therefore, a separate Show Cause Notice is not required to be given in such an eventuality.
It is pertinent to mention here out of 86 Nos. Fireman posted in HPGCL, only 13 Nos. Fireman including Sh. Sukram Pal Singh, Fireman refused to accept the uniform etc. on an excuse of substandard uniform. As is evident from various enquiries conducted at various levels and through different agencies, the complaint regarding substandard material has been found to be false."
For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petitions. Accordingly, the same are dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 30.1.2013 mk