R.S.A. No.2471 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** R.S.A. No.2471 of 1987 Date of Decision:16.07.2010 State of Punjab and another .....Appellants Vs. Inderjit Singh Dammi .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. P.C. Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. None for the respondent. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment/ decree dated 2.3.1987 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Punjab and others against the judgment/ decree dated 8.2.1985 rendered by the Court of learned Sub Judge III Class, Bhatinda vide which he decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs to the effect that the impugned order dated 5.1.1982 issued by the Government vide which two minor penalties, one for recovery of Rs.900/- from the plaintiff and the other withholding of the increment of the plaintiff without cumulative effect is illegal and void. The facts which led to the filing of the suit are that the plaintiff while posted as Sub Divisional Engineer, Public Health Department was served with a show cause notice dated 26.9.1972 to which he filed his reply, but show cause notice was withdrawn by the Commissioner for Public R.S.A. No.2471 of 1987 -2- Works and Secretary to Govt. Punjab vide Endst. No.3208 dated 12.12.1974. He was again served with a charge-sheet vide Endst. No.3177- V(17)-74/7143 to which the plaintiff submitted his reply dated 10.2.1975 which was considered unsatisfactory. On the basis of inquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Department, the impugned penalty stopping one annual increment without cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.900/- due to pecuniary loss caused to the State has been imposed on him. The plaintiff has posed a challenge to the impugned order on the grounds that the same is non-speaking one and that the findings of the inquiry report were not supplied to him, nor any show cause notice was issued to him before inflicting the punishment. Having entered appearance, the defendants filed written statement controverting the allegations in the plaint. It has been pleaded inter-alia that since the penalty imposed on the plaintiff was of minor nature, so non-supply of inquiry report to him had no legal consequence and the detailed order was not required to be passed as the punishing authority had concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the order dated 5.1.82 of defendant No.2 vide which two penalties one for recovery of Rs.900/- and other for withholding of increment without cumulative effect is illegal, void? OPP 2. Whether this court has jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD 3. Relief. After examining the evidence and hearing the learned counsel R.S.A. No.2471 of 1987 -3- for the parties, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in the terms noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the State of Punjab and others went up in appeal, which was dismissed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda. Being undaunted and dissatisfied with the judgments recorded by both the Courts below, the State of Punjab and others have preferred this appeal. This case was adjourned from time to time for arguments, but none had been putting in appearance on behalf of the respondent despite the fact that this matter for hearing was also displayed on the net. However, I have heard the learned State Counsel appearing for the appellants besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Mr. P.C. Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab on behalf of the appellants urged with great eloquence that minor penalties were imposed upon the plaintiff after holding regular departmental inquiry and that being so, second show cause notice was not required to be served upon him. To add further to it, after amendment in the Constitution, the necessity of serving second show cause notice has been dispensed with. Besides this, even if no copy of the findings of inquiry was furnished with the show cause notice nonetheless, no prejudice appears to have been caused to the plaintiff- respondent. These contentions merit rejection for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The admitted facts are that the show cause notice which was initially served upon the plaintiff- respondent was withdrawn. Thereafter, the charge-sheet was served upon the plaintiff- respondent containing the allegations that he had caused pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs.900/- to the R.S.A. No.2471 of 1987 -4- State by purchasing sub-standard wooden sleepers from Pathankot. Finding reply to be unsatisfactory, regular departmental inquiry was initiated. It was on the basis of the inquiry report that the impugned order Ex.P6 was passed imposing two minor penalties, i.e., withholding of one annual increment and recovery of Rs.900/- on account of pecuniary loss caused to the Government by purchasing sub-standard wooden sleepers. It is also undisputed that the impugned order was passed by the punishing authority in concurrence with the findings of the inquiring authority, but copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the plaintiff- respondent either prior to the passing of the impugned order or along with the punishing order Ex.P6. Rule 11, Part IV of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 read as under:- “Orders made by the punishing authority shall be communicated to the Government employee who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the punishing authority and a copy of its findings on each article of charge, or, where the punishing authority is not the inquiring authority, a copy of the report of the inquiring authority and a statement of the findings of the punishing authority together with brief reasons for its disagreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiring authority (unless they have already been supplied to him) and also a copy of the advice, if any, given by the commission and where the punishing authority has not accepted the advice of the commission, a brief statement of the reasons for such non- acceptance.” R.S.A. No.2471 of 1987 -5- The principle on which this rule is grounded is that the delinquent employee in disciplinary cases should have complete information about the orders passed against him and the whole material on the basis of which the order is made. This rule postulates that the delinquent employee shall be supplied with a copy of the inquiry report alongwith a copy of findings of the punishing authority on each article of charge, where the punishing authority has disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer, there the copy of discordant note recorded by the former has to be supplied to the delinquent employee. The object behind it is to apprise the delinquent employee as to for which reasons his plea could not find favour either with the enquiry officer or the punishing authority as the case may be or what material evidence, which he could not rebut had surfaced against him during enquiry or for what reasons the punishing authority could not agree with the findings of the inquiry officer. The canons of natural justice too contemplate that one must know the reasons for his being punished. In Harchand Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1980(3), Services Law Reporter 711, it has been laid down by this Court that where minor punishment is imposed by relying upon the report of the Enquiry Officer, the employee has to be supplied with its copy and if minor punishment is given by finding that explanation of the official was not satisfactory, then the order has to be of speaking nature. If either of the two things is not specified, then order imposing the minor penalty has to be quashed. Adverting to the instant one, the reply Ex.P5 filed by the plaintiff- respondent to the charge-sheet Ex.P4 was found to be unsatisfactory. It was thereafter that regular inquiry was embarked upon. Eventually, the Ex.P6, the impugned order was rendered by the punishing authority. The R.S.A. No.2471 of 1987 -6- defendant- appellants have not proved on the record that copy of the report of the inquiring authority was supplied to the plaintiff- respondent. Thus, to my mind, this case is squarely covered by the rule laid down in Harchand Singh's case (supra). It crystalises the conclusion that the provisions of Rule 11 referred to hereinbefore have not been adhered to. Sequelly, the findings returned by both the Courts below cannot be faulted with in any manner. As a sequel of the above discussion, this appeal fails and is dismissed. July 16, 2010 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter? Yes