CWP No.12955 of 1993 : 1 : In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 10.02.2010 Jai Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.VB Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.RKS Brar, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Heard the learned counsel for the parties. While serving as a Tehsil Welfare Officer, the petitioner was placed under suspension by respondent No.2 vide office order dated 22.1.1992. Later, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet vide memo dated 11.3.1992. After considering the reply of the petitioner, a regular enquiry was ordered vide memo dated 17.6.1992. The Enquiry Officer held two charges out of five to be proved against the petitioner. On consideration of the Enquiry Report, the petitioner was imposed with penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect vide memo dated 13.1.1993. The aforesaid order was followed by another order dated 14.3.1993 (Annexure P-2) whereby the period of suspension from 22.1.1992 to 4.8.1992 has been decided. It is ordered that the petitioner shall be entitled to only subsistence allowance already paid and no other emoluments. It is against the aforesaid order that the petitioner has filed this petition. Respondents have taken shelter of Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil CWP No.12955 of 1993 : 2 : Services Rules, Vol.-I, to justify the impugned order. In terms of the aforesaid rule, the employer has the competence to decide the period of suspension where the employee is not fully exonerated of the charges. It is, accordingly, stated that order dated 4.3.1992 has been passed in terms of Rule 7.3 of the aforesaid rules. The petitioner has not been fully exonerated warranting full emoluments for the period of suspension. Apart from the other grounds, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of being heard whatsoever has been afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Om Phal Vs. State of Haryana and others , 1991 (3) Recent Services Judgments, 632. In the aforesaid case, this Court has held as under:- “It is the case of the petitioner that respondents had passed orders to the effect that the petitioner was not entitled to anything more than the subsistence allowance during the periods of suspension mentioned above, but before such orders were passed no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why noting more than subsistence allowance be paid for the said periods. According to the petitioner's counsel, such orders are violative of the Rules of natural justice. For this CWP No.12955 of 1993 : 3 : proposition, he relied upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Shri Nand Kishore v. The State of Punjab and others, 1983 (1) SLJ, 43. It has been observed in this case as under:- After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter, I find that the petition deserves to succeed on both the counts and the impugned orders are liable to be annulled. By now it has been authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court in B.O. Gupta v. State of Haryana that before passing an order under Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. 1, depriving an employee of his emoluments for the suspension period on the ground that he had not been fully exonerated of the charges levelled against him, the principles of natural justice and fair play demand that the Government servant be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause as to why orders affecting his pay and emoluments to his prejudice should CWP No.12955 of 1993 : 4 : not be passed. In a nutshell, for depriving an employee of his emoluments and pay during the suspension period a separate show cause notice independent of the notice of the charges of the enquiry being held or already held against him has to be given to the petitioner before the passing of the impugned order, Annexure P-6.” From the perusal of the impugned order Annexure P-2, it appears that no opportunity or show cause notice was ever issued before passing the aforesaid order. In view of the dictum of the judgment mentioned above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. This petition is accordingly allowed. Annexure P-2 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the competent authority. 10.02.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES