Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhakra Beas Management Board vs Gulzara Singh Son Of Karam Singh on 28 May, 2013
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
RSA No.1568 of 1988(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RSA No.1568 of 1988(O&M)
Date of decision: 28.05.2013
Bhakra Beas Management Board, through its Chairman, Sector 35,
Chandigarh and another.
.....Appellants
VERSUS
Gulzara Singh son of Karam Singh, Head Store Keeper (Retd.) of
Bhakra Beas Management Board, resident of Nangal Township,
District Rupnagar.
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No
Present: Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. R.L. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Sandeep SIngh, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.2 and 3.
*******
K. KANNAN, J.(ORAL)
1. The second appeal arises out of the judgments of the Courts below when the order of the disciplinary authority imposing a penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and certain recoveries directed against the petitioner were challenged and held to be illegal and unenforceable. The plaintiff's case was rested on the fact that during the period of the service as a Store Keeper some goods were found missing and on a complaint registered with the police they were reported to be not RSA No.1568 of 1988(O&M) 2 traceable. The Store Keeper as a person who was in-charge of the goods and accountable for their loss was proceeded against departmentally and after a notice issued by the Superintending Engineer calling for explanation and eliciting a response, the Superintending Engineer passed the impugned order. In the suit filed and in the adjudication made three issues fell for consideration in the light of their respective pleadings:-
(i) Whether the Superintending Engineer had the competence to institute the enquiry. According to the plaintiff it was only the Chief Engineer who was competent.
(ii) Whether the impugned order being a non-speaking one, it offended the rules of natural justice and were particularly, in not setting up an inquiry but imposing a major penalty of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect without affording an opportunity to the plaintiff to show cause against the action.
(iii) The plaintiff also had an objection that the recoveries made was also untenable especially when he was not the only person who was responsible but there was another Store Keeper who was also equally responsible and the liability must have been directed to be shared amongst them.
2. In my view, the case by the appellant must obtain dismissal for the only reason that the major penalty has been imposed without involving the plaintiff in any form of inquiry. The summary punishment imposed cannot be sustained and the plaintiff was entitled to succeed on that short ground. Arguments were advanced by the counsel appearing on behalf of the State and counsel for respondent joining issues on the same that it was RSA No.1568 of 1988(O&M) 3 only the Superintending Engineer who was the appointing authority under PWD Code, and he was therefore competent to initiate the departmental proceedings. The counsel for the respondent would, however, rely on the written statement filed to the effect that it was the Chief Engineer who was competent but he had authorised the Superintending Engineer to take action against Punjab Government employees including the plaintiff. The counsel for the respondent would argue that if the Superintending Engineer was himself not competent, as admitted in the written statement, there could not be an oral delegation of authority unless there were rules authorizing such a course. The counsel relies on a judgment in Mohinder Singh Babbra Vs. State of Punjab & others reported in 1971 Vol. 73 PLR page 400 to the effect that in the absence of rules, oral delegation of authority to take disciplinary action was incompetent. I am not prepared to examine the issue of the competence of the officer to initiate the proceedings, when I have found that the impugned order suffers from a fundamental vice of violation of rules of natural justice.
4. The counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant states that there had been admittedly loss of goods of value of `26,000/- and the management must have an opportunity to renew the action in accordance with law, if the punishment imposed was found to be illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.
5. I do not think of matter that relates to cause of action of loss of goods said to have resulted in the year 1982 must obtain a fresh consideration after three decades. The case has become stale and defendant shall not be permitted to reopen the whole episode by an opportunity to be RSA No.1568 of 1988(O&M) 4 provided for starting the proceedings again. The decree granted by the Appellate Court is sustained, although for different reasons. The appeal is dismissed.
28.05.2013 [ K. KANNAN ] Diwaker Gulati JUDGE