Punjab-Haryana High Court
The State Of Punjab vs Shri Kapil Dev on 10 February, 2010
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Regular Second Appeal No. 2757 of 1985 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 2757 of 1985
Date of decision: 10.02.2010
The State of Punjab ...appellant
Versus
Shri Kapil Dev ...respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab
for the State.
None for the respondent.
*****
RANJIT SINGH J.
Kapil Dev, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit challenging the order awarding him punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. There was a complaint made against the respondent-plaintiff by the Panchayat when Block Development Officer was deputed to investigate the same. On this basis, the respondent-plaintiff was served Ex. DD, which was letter containing details of imputation of misconduct. However, there was no mention made in this letter as to what action was proposed to be taken against the respondent-plaintiff. There was certain Annexures attached with the Ex.DD, which were not even produced before the Court when the order of punishment was put to challenge.
The respondent-plaintiff had submitted a reply in detail, Regular Second Appeal No. 2757 of 1985 2 which apparently was not considered and the punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect imposed on him. The respondent-plaintiff accordingly filed the suit on the ground that he was not afforded adequate opportunity before imposing this punishment. The trial Court after making reference to the evidence on record, came to conclude that Ex. DD could not be termed as show cause notice. It is observed that the reply given by the respondent-plaintiff to this communication was not taken into consideration while imposing the punishment. Finding is that as a matter of fact that Ex. DD could not be considered to be a show cause notice. The finding accordingly is that the proper procedure for imposing the penalty, though a minor one, was not followed. The suit was accordingly decreed and appeal filed by the State was also dismissed.
The State counsel would urge that there was no necessity to mention the proposed punishment in the show cause notice and only imputation of misconduct was required to be mentioned so that the employee can file reply. The finding by the Courts is that this Exhibit was a communication and could not be taken as a show cause notice for the purpose of receiving response.
Rule 10 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act') regulate the procedure for awarding minor penalties, which reads as under:-
(1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-rule 3 of Rule 9, no order imposing on a Government employee any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 5 shall be Regular Second Appeal No. 2757 of 1985 3 made except after-
(a) informing the Government employee in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct or mis-behaviour on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal;
(b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in Sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 8, in every case in which the punishing authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary;
(c ) taking the representation, if any submitted by the Government employee under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration;
(d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or mis-behaviour; and
(e) consulting the commission where such consultation is necessary.
(2) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall include-
(i) a copy of the intimation to the Government employee of the proposal to take action against him;
(ii) a copy of the statement of imputations of Regular Second Appeal No. 2757 of 1985 4 misconduct or misbehaviour delivered to him;
(iii) his representation, if any;
(iv) the evidence produced during the inquiry;
(v) the advice of the commission, if any;
(vi) the findings of the punishing authority and also the report of the inquiring authority in case an inquiry has been held under clause (b) of Sub-rule (1) and
(vii) the orders on the case together with the reasons therefor.
It is thus clear that before awarding minor penalty, the Government employee is required to be informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputations of misconduct and misbehaviour on which action is proposed to be taken. The employee is also required to be given reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed action. It would thus clear the none of the minor penalty as enumerated Rule 5 of act can be imposed without following the procedure prescribed in Rule 10 referred above. Though it may not be necessary to make a specific mention of the minor penalty, which is proposed to be awarded in the show cause notice but still the employee will have to be intimated that award of one of the minor penalties enumerated in Rule 5 is proposed. That would be requirement of a notice which obviously was missing in the instant case, where no such mention was made. Regular Second Appeal No. 2757 of 1985 5
In this case also, the State has not formulated any substantial question of law. The question of law which may even emerge in this case, in my view would not be a substantial one, requiring consideration especially in the background that the respondent by now is not likely to be in service. Interference in the Regular Second Appeal at this stage certainly is not called.
Dismissed.
February 10, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE