CWP No.854 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.854 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.02.2010 **** Bahadur Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. R.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 09.07.2003 (Annexure P2) passed by the District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Hoshiarpur, whereby, punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed upon him. He also seeks quashing of the order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P9) passed by the Director of Public Instructions (Elementary Education), Punjab – respondent No.2 dismissing his departmental appeal against the above-stated order. CWP No.854 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). The question that arises for consideration is as to whether a major penalty like stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect could be imposed upon the petitioner without holding the regular departmental enquiry, by following the procedure laid down under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970? (3). There can indeed be no doubt that stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been held to be a ‘major penalty’ by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab, 1991 SCC Supl. (1) 504. It was further held that it is imperative upon the authorities to hold a regular enquiry before imposing any major penalty. Admittedly, the procedure followed by the respondents is for imposition of a minor penalty, namely, charge- sheet/show cause notice and consideration of reply thereto before passing the impugned order. (4). The question that may still arise for consideration is as to whether the impugned punishment order can be set aside with liberty to the respondents to hold the regular enquiry against the petitioner who has already been retired from his services; CWP No.854 of 2009.doc - 3 – and/or to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court to convert the punishment of petitioner from major to minor penalty? (5). In my considered view, it would not be expedient to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority to enable it to hold another fact-finding enquiry after the petitioner has already retired from services. At the same time considering the material on record, there can be no escape but to hold that the factual conclusions drawn against the petitioner by the respondents warrant no interference by this Court. (6). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part; the impugned order dated 07.09.2003 (Annexure P2) is modified to the extent that the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect shall be treated as stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. Necessary consequences shall follow. (7). Ordered accordingly. (8). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 02.02.2010 vishal shonkar CWP No.854 of 2009.doc - 4 –