IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.612 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 15.01.2010. Parminder Singh .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Ms.Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no counter reply is required to be filed by the respondents at this stage. The petitioner is serving as Deputy Superintendent of Police in Punjab. During his posting to Tac.HQrs 2nd Commando Battalion, Kokrajhar in March, 1995, he is alleged to have misconducted which led to initiation of regular departmental enquiry against him vide charge-sheet C.W.P.No .612 of 2010 (O&M) 2 dated 2.9.1995. The petitioner denied the allegations in his detailed reply and joined the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, who was a fairly senior police officer, submitted his detailed enquiry report (Annexure P-6), exonerating the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. The State Government did not agree with the Enquiry Officer and imposed a punishment of stoppage of two annual increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect even without supplying a copy of the enquiry report to him and/or giving specific reasons for dis-agreeing with the enquiry report. The said order dated 24.2.2004 was set-aside by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2007 (Annexure P-4) passed in CWP No.11103 of 2005 (Parminder Singh versus State of Punjab and others), leaving it open to the competent authority to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after following the prescribed procedure. The State Government has, thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 8.4.2009 (issued on 29.5.2009) (Annexure P-8), whereby the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect has been again imposed upon the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned order. In my considered view, the impugned order does not meet the requirements of principles of natural justice and fair play and cannot be said to be a `speaking order'. The narration of facts pertaining to the allegations levelled against the petitioner or reproduction of previous order C.W.P.No .612 of 2010 (O&M) 3 passed by this Court, the Competent Authority has assigned no valid reason to disbelieve the enquiry report or for rejecting the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in his reply dated 20.6.2008 to the show cause notice. The petitioner's other grievance is that he has not been offered opportunity of personal hearing also, though earlier it was granted to him. In my considered view, a delinquent cannot claim personal hearing as a matter of right unless he expressly requests for the same and/or it is mandated by the rules. However, while imposing a major penalty, it is imperative upon the competent authority to apply its mind short-list the issues raised and then respond to those issues in the light of the material on record. No such exercise has been undertaken by the competent authority while passing the impugned order. For example, it is the case of the petitioner that Mr.B.K.Uppal, Commandant of the Battalion joined on 14.4.1995 whereas the alleged incidence had taken place on the intervening night of 11/12.4.1995. The petitioner's case is that the report submitted by Mr.B.K.Uppal, was, therefore, based upon hearsay and ought not to have been relied upon. The impugned order reveals that the State Government has again relied upon the fact finding enquiry report dated 18.4.1995 submitted by Mr.B.K.Uppal even without countering the contention raised by the petitioner. While a disciplinary authority may not be required to pass a `judgment' like the Court of law, nevertheless, the punishment order must formulate the contentions raised by the delinquent official in his defence C.W.P.No .612 of 2010 (O&M) 4 and then deal with the same. Contrary to it, para No.10 of the impugned order simply concludes that the reply submitted by the petitioner has not been found satisfactory. The disciplinary authority appears to have been influenced by the fact in the reply dated 20.6.2008 the petitioner “has not taken fresh ground in his defence”. It simply suggests that the competent authority has failed to appreciate the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 15.11.2007 in terms whereof a fresh decision was required to be taken by following the prescribed procedure which necessarily means that the contentions already raised by the petitioner were to be dealt with independently, uninfluenced of the earlier decision taken by the State Government. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 8.4.2009/29.5.2009 (Annexure P-8) is quashed, however, leaving it open to the competent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Dasti. 15-01-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE