Letters Patent Appeal No.181 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision:-6.2.2009 R.D.Verma ---Appellant Versus The State of Haryana and others ---Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present:- Mr.D.D.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.K.Garg Narwana, Addl. AG Haryana for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Rajesh Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3. J.S.KHEHAR, J.(ORAL) Through the instant Letters Patent Appeal the appellant has impugned the decision rendered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.3008 of 1994 on 3.5.2006. The controversy, which was raised at the hands of the appellant in the aforesaid writ petition, pertains to an order dated 5.11.1990, by which four annual increments of the appellant were stopped with cumulative effect. Sequence of facts arising in the instant appeal are not a matter of dispute. In the first instance a charge sheet was issued to the appellant, whereupon, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted. On the first two dates of hearing before the Enquiry Officer the appellant did not present himself on account of his alleged illness. The appellant refused to appear even on the next date of hearing, by asserting that, it was a gazetted holiday, and as such, proceedings could not be fixed on a gazetted holiday. On Letters Patent Appeal No.181 of 2006 2 account of non-appearance of the appellant before the Enquiry Officer exparte proceedings were initiated against him. On the culmination thereof the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the charges levelled against the appellant as having been duly proved. After culmination of the departmental inquiry, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant, in response whereof the appellant sought a copy of the enquiry report, as well as, particulars of evidence produced by the department against the appellant during the enquiry proceedings. The appellant was furnished with a copy of the enquiry report. However, in so far as the particulars of the evidence sought by him are concerned, he was afforded an opportunity to inspect the record and take notes therefrom. After the aforesaid material was furnished to the appellant, the impugned order dated 5.11.1990 was passed against him by inflicting upon him the punishment of stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect. The solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is based on the Staff Service Rules of the Haryana State Federation of Consumer's Cooperative Wholesale Stores Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Staff Service Rules”) by inviting our attention to Rule 27 thereof, which is being extracted hereunder:- “27.No penalty shall be imposed on any employee unless the charge or charges on which it is proposed to take disciplinary action against him have been communicated to him in writing and has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. In the case of all punishment to excepting for minor misconduct the authority competent to impose the penalty Letters Patent Appeal No.181 of 2006 3 shall hold an enquiry into the charge or charges or cause such an enquiry to be held by an officer superior to the persons against whom the action is proposed to be taken for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or otherwise of the charge or charges, employee concerned shall be permitted to produce or cite witnesses on his behalf and examine the relevant document, but shall be allowed to engage counsel at the enquiry.” It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the mandate of the aforesaid Rule had not been followed, inasmuch as, a reasonable opportunity has not been afforded to the appellant to defend himself, during the course of departmental proceedings. In order to project his aforesaid contention learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to paragraph 2 of the reply submitted by the appellant to the show cause notice issued to him. Relevant extract of Paragraph 2 of the reply submitted by the appellant is being reproduced hereunder:- “2. Neither I was allowed to have necessary copies of the incriminating documents alleged to have been produced before the enquiry officer, nor I have been given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, if any. I have been denied the right to lead evidence in my defence and the enquiry has been completed on my back despite my written request to fix date and time for which I prayed to the then Managing Director vide dated 1.6.89.” Having considered the totality of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, we find no merit therein. Learned Letters Patent Appeal No.181 of 2006 4 Single Judge was fully justified in arriving at the conclusion, that the action of the respondents in proceeding exparte against the appellant was fully justified. It is obvious from the factual position that on the first three dates of the proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer the appellant sought an adjournment. If the appellant was desirous to defend himself in the departmental proceedings he could have found out the next date of hearing and could have appeared before the Enquiry Officer, after he had been duly served in the enquiry proceedings. The appellant was himself blame worthy of seeking adjournments from time to time. As such, we are satisfied that the action of the respondents in proceeding against the appellant exparte during the course of the departmental proceedings conducted against him was fully justified. Despite the aforesaid, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant was denied the right to cross- examine the witnesses who had appeared before the Enquiry Officer. He also assails the action of the respondents in not affording an opportunity to him to lead evidence before the Enquiry Officer, so as to substantiate his defence. In our view, the instant plea raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is wholly unjustified. Having arrived at the conclusion that exparte proceedings initiated against the appellant was justified, it is natural to conclude that the appellant himself was blame worthy of not appearing before the Enquiry Officer, so as to avail of the opportunity either cross- examine the witnesses produced by the prosecution, or to lead his own evidence in defence. No other submission, besides those noticed here-in-above, was advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. Letters Patent Appeal No.181 of 2006 5 In view of the above, we find no merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. We are satisfied that there was no justifiable legal submissions in the hands of the appellant to file the instant appeal. We are satisfied that the instant appeal is totally frivolous and accordingly deserves to be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.5000/-. The aforesaid costs shall be deposited by the appellant with the Legal Services Authority, Haryana, Chandigarh, within one month from today, and the receipt thereof shall be placed on the record of the instant appeal. In case the aforesaid receipt is not placed on the record of this case within the time stipulated here-in-above, the instant appeal shall be re-listed for motion hearing for recovery of the aforesaid costs. (J.S.Khehar) Judge (Nawab Singh) 6.2.2009 Judge AS