IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11601 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 05, 2010. Gopal Kakkar .....Petitioner versus The Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. And another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Ajay Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 15.3.2008 and 28.1.2010 (Annexures P-10 & P-13 respectively). Vide the first order dated 15.3.2008, the Managing Director of respondent No.1 has imposed a minor punishment of recovery of Rs.5,000/- on the petitioner even after holding that the Organization suffered a financial loss to the tune of Rs.40,907/- due to negligence of the petitioner. Vide the later order dated 28.1.2010, the Board of Directors have dismissed the petitioner's appeal, filed against the aforesaid order dated 15.3.2008. C.W.P.No .11601 of 2010 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no regular enquiry has been held before imposing the impugned punishment nor the petitioner has been associated in the regular enquiry which was held against other officials on similar charges. On this premise, it is averred that the principles of natural justice have been violated. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the documents on record, I do not find any merit in the contention. It is well settled that for imposing a major penalty “reasonable opportunity of being heard” would necessitate a regular enquiry to give an opportunity to the delinquent official to lead his evidence and prove his innocence. On the contrary, a minor punishment can be imposed after giving a show cause notice to the delinquent official, which must contain the specific allegations against him, unless the Competent Authority forms an opinion that a regular enquiry is necessitated irrespective of the nature of punishment. In the case in hand, the petitioner was served with a self- speaking show cause notice to which he filed his reply and after considering the same, the Managing Director of the Organization has passed a self-speaking order which has been further upheld by the Appellate Authority. No case to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out. Dismissed. July 05, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE