CWP No.24300 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.24300 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:23.12.2011 Union of India and others ..... Petitioners Versus Basant Kumar and another ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI Present: Mr.A.S.Grewal, Advocate for the petitioners. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 12.11.2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. Counsel for the Union of India contends that as requisite departmental enquiry was conducted and punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect is a minor penalty, the impugned order holding that order of punishment is illegal, may be set aside. It is further submitted that as respondent No.1 has not proved any prejudice, the impugned order is invalid. We have heard counsel for the petitioners, perused the paper book and the impugned order. As is apparent from the impugned order, respondent No.1 was served with a show cause notice for imposition of a major punishment. CWP No.24300 of 2011 (O&M) -2- The enquiry officer indicted respondent No.1. The punishing authority imposed a major punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. An appeal filed by respondent No.1 was dismissed. Aggrieved by these orders, respondent No.1 filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, alleging that as the enquiry officer did not examine witnesses during the enquiry, the orders of punishment and dismissal of appeal are a nullity. Counsel appearing for the petitioners, before the Tribunal, conceded that the enquiry officer had not recorded the statements of witnesses. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the petition, set aside the order of punishment and dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the petitioners is unable to refer to any material to show that the enquiry officer recorded the statements of witnesses. The argument that stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect is a minor penalty is misconceived as stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty. The argument that no prejudice has been caused to respondent No.1 by failure to record evidence is incorrect as recording of evidence is the sine-qua-non of a valid enquiry. The admitted failure of the enquiry officer to examine witnesses renders the enquiry null and void and the order imposing punishment a nullity. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed but without CWP No.24300 of 2011 (O&M) -3- prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to conduct an enquiry, in accordance with law. [RAJIVE BHALLA] JUDGE 23.12.2011 [NARESH KUMAR SANGHI] shamsher JUDGE