CWP No.1195 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.1195 of 2008 Date of Decision: 25.1.2008 Anil Dahiya ............. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..............Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Sh.RK Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** JASWANT SINGH, J. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of impugned order dated 14/21.9.2007 (Annexure P-5) vide which he has been awarded the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Economics on 4.8.1989 in Vivekanand College, Nangal Chaudhary. The same was taken over by the Government on 24.7.1997 and since then he is in the employment of Education Department, Government of Haryana / respondent. The petitioner was charge sheeted under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (for short the Rules) vide memo dated 16.11.2004 for the acts of omission and commission, committed while he was posted as Lecturer in Commerce, Government College, Hodal from 9.7.1998 to 11.12.2003. The charges levelled against him were as under:- 1. “A camp regarding primary health training was organized from 15.10.03 to 17.10.03 at Government College, Narnaul. The nearby colleges were instructed to send the NCC Cadets CWP No.1195 of 2008 -2- for training. Sh. Anil Dahiya reached the camp site alongwith the NCC Cadets to participate in the training camp on 14.10.03. He had consumed alcohol (wine) and in a drunken state, he misbehaved with the following officials/employees who were present on the site. 1. Sh.Suresh Kumar Dugga, Naib Tehsildar. 2. Sh.Ajit Singh and Sh.Umed Singh, 0/o Deputy Commissioner, Mahendergarh. 3. Sh.Tek Chand Yadav, Instructor, District Primary Education Officer, Narnaul. 4. Sh. Pardeep Kumar, District Coordinator, Nehru Yuva Kendra, Narnaul. Inspite of the persuasion made by the officials present at the site, he did not change his attitude. When the high officials warned him, he left for Faridabad by bus. Such misbehaviour with officials/employees indicates his indiscipline, misconduct and immorality. Due to his unwanted behaviour as stated above, he has put the department in an awkward position and it has also given a wrong signal to the public in general and specifically to the students in the divison. With this behaviour, he has disgraced the dignity of his post and he has also violated service rules (conduct) 1966 clause 3.1 and 3.1(ii) and (iii). The irregularities committed by Sh. Anil Dahiya shows the serious misconduct and he has himself made responsible for the stern disciplinary action.” The petitioner filed his reply dated 15.12.2004 to the above said charge sheet. The same was not found satisfactory and Enquiry Officer CWP No.1195 of 2008 -3- was appointed vide memo dated 27.1.2005, who submitted his enquiry report dated 11.10.2005 (Annexure P-3), the relevant excerpts of which are as under:- “ Conclusion:- On the basis of the statements presented by Sh.Suresh Kumar Duggal, witness no.1 (Annexure-I), Sh.Ajit Singh witness No.2 (Annexure-II), Sh.Umed Singh witness No.3 (Annexure -III), Sh.Tek Chand witness NO.4 (Annexure-IV) and Sh.Pardeep Kumar, witness No.5 (Annexure-V) and the cross examination with Sh.Anil Dahiya (Annexure-XIII), the undersigned has come to the conclusion that Sh.Anil Dahiya accompanied the students as per the instructions of the Principal, Government College, Hodal. The statements given by the witnesses from Serial no.1-5 do not tally with each other. Further the statement are only given by a few persons and no statement of other have been recorded in this case. If Sh.Anil Dahiya had used alcohol (wine) at the juncture, it was the duty of the employee and other officials to inform the matter to the CMO to get him medically checked so that there should be a solid proof of using the alcohol. But the statements given by the witnesses from serial no.1-5 shows that Sh.Anil Dahiya must have misbehaved whatsoever the reasons may be. Recommendations:- Misbehaving with the person on duty is the serious misconduct and it is not expected from a Lecturer/Govt. Employee of the college. Hence it is recommended that action CWP No.1195 of 2008 -4- may be taken against the teacher under rule (7) of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,1987 on the grounds set up in the statement of charges.” (emphasis supplied). Thereafter, the Financial Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Government of Haryana, Education Department,Chandigarh, issued a show cause notice dated 25.1.2006 (Annexure P-1) alongwith a dissenting note and copy of the enquiry report. The show cause notice proposed penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. The dissenting note contained the reasons for not agreeing with the conclusions and observations recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner filed his detailed reply dated 15.2.2006 (Annexure P-4) to the same. Personal hearing to the petitioner was also given on 17.7.2007. The disciplinary authority after careful consideration of the matter held that it was proved that the petitioner was drunk, misbehaved with his colleagues and superiors in front of the school children in the NCC Camp and did not perform his duties and proceeded to impose the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 14/21.9.2007 (Annexure P-5). Hence this writ petition. The sole argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that principle of natural justice is violated inasmuch as the disciplinary authority has straightway formed its opinion on the charges disagreeing with the finding of innocence of said charges by the Enquiry Officer, without first supplying its tentative reasons for such disagreement and granting him an opportunity to represent against the same. In support of this argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Punjab CWP No.1195 of 2008 -5- National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra etc., 1998(5) SLR 715 and State Bank of India and others v. K.P.Narayanan Kutty, 2003(2) SLR 59. There is no disputing the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank's case and State Bank of India's case (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the Enquiry Officer on any article of charge, then before it records its own finding on such a charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give delinquent official to represent before it records its finding. To our mind, the cited authorities are not of much assistance to the petitioner. A perusal of the charges levelled against the petitioner , as reproduced hereinabove reveals that it was a composite charge that the petitioner had consumed alcohol and in a drunken state misbehaved with certain officials. A reading of the conclusions arrived (reproduced hereinabove) indicates that the Enquiry Officer did not categorically hold as to whether the petitioner was drunk or not. He has merely observed that if the petitioner had consumed alcohol it was the duty of the officials present to inform the Chief Medical Officer concerned and get him medically examined so that there could be a solid proof of his having consumed alcohol. The Enquiry Officer on the charge of misbehaviour recorded his finding that the petitioner had actually misbehaved with the officials. The Enquiry Officer further proceeded to recommend that the action be taken against the petitioner on the grounds set up in the statement of charges . The net result was that only a part of the composite charge i.e. his being drunk was neither proved nor disproved and in these circumstances the CWP No.1195 of 2008 -6- disciplinary authority proceeded to give its reasons on the conclusion and observations of the Enquiry Officer while giving the dissenting note. In the facts of the present case, keeping in view the nature of composite charge, the conclusions and recommendations of the Enquiry Officer, it was necessary for the disciplinary authority to examine the same, record its reasons and forward the same to the petitioner so as to enable him to make a meaningful representation/defence against the same. By resorting to this approach, the disciplinary authority has in fact facilitated the petitioner in adequately knowing the findings against him which had to be met by him as reflected from the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice accompanied by the dissenting note. Reading of the reply reveals that the petitioner has dealt with the adverse findings recorded in the dissenting note in a systematic and legal manner and without taking up the plea of violation of principles of natural justice in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred to above or showing any prejudice having been caused to him on this count. The petitioner was even afforded a personal hearing on 16.7.2007 by the disciplinary authority, whereupon he stated that he had nothing to say beyond what he had submitted in his reply. Thus, it is clear that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the approach of the disciplinary authority. In the facts of the case, wherein inconclusive finding with regard to his drunken state coupled with a categoric finding of his misbehaviour and recommending of action being taken against him on the grounds set up in the charges (which were composite in nature), it was inbuilt for the disciplinary authority to examine the report and record its reasons and submit a dissenting note to the petitioner for making an CWP No.1195 of 2008 -7- effective representation against the same although in doing so the phraseology used may be slightly defective. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of merit and hence rejected. In view of the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this writ petition. Dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (Jaswant Singh) Judge 25.1.2008 (Jasbir Singh) joshi Judge