C.W.P. No. 20740 of 2008 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 20740 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: 21.07.2011 Engineer Randhir Singh Pathania ..........Petitioner Versus Punjab State Electricity Board ..........Respondent BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. Vijay Kaushal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Sudan, Advocate for the respondent. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India has been filed for quashing of order dated 11.12.2007 vide which penalty of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner and order dated 27.8.2008 vide which the appeal filed by him against the order of punishment has also been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is totally non- speaking and no opportunity of hearing whatsoever was given to the petitioner and the impugned order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has not availed an alternative remedy of filing a revision against the impugned order. Learned counsel further submits that since it is a case of C.W.P. No. 20740 of 2008 (2) imposition of minor penalty, no opportunity of hearing was required. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as well as other documents available on the file. As per impugned order, two increments have been stopped without cumulative effect, which is a minor penalty and for imposition of minor penalty, no inquiry or any opportunity of hearing is required. Learned counsel for the petitioner has wrongly relied upon the Regulation that for imposition of punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect, an opportunity of hearing is required. As per Regulation, stoppage of increment falls under minor penalties and moreover the petitioner has not availed the alternative remedy of filing revision against the order passed by appellate authority as provided under the Punishment and Appeals Regulation, 1971, charge sheet was issued as per Rules/Regulation and he was also given fair and just opportunity to present his case before the competent authority. There is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail an alternative remedy. July 21, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No