Civil Writ Petition No. 4941 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4941 of 1990 Date of decision: 12.11.2009 P.C. Aggarwal ...petitioner Versus The State of Harayana and another ...respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner who was charge sheeted under Rule 8 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') has impugned the order awarding him punishment of forfeiture of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect coupled with recovery of sum of Rs. 9600/-. The petitioner was charge sheeted for the following allegations: i) That Sh. P.C. Aggarwal got used 160 cum less material on the work of strengthening of pavement of D.H.S. Road NH-10 in km 205 to 214 and thus caused a loss of Rs. 19200/- to the State Exchequer. ii) That Sh. P.C. Aggarwal accepted part overgauses material for the work of strengthening of pavement of DHS Road NH 10 in running bills in violation of terms and condition Civil Writ Petition No. 4941 of 1990 2 of agreement and thus violated the provision of para 5.5 (a) of the P.W.D. B&R Mannual of Orders. iii) That Sh. P.C. Aggarwal accepted, measured and allowed payment of part material without receiving full material in the previous kilometers in violation of the instructions dated 9.10.1986 issued by the Engineer-in-Chief and thus failed to perform his duties properly. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet and the charges noted above. The reply submitted by the petitioner was found unsatisfactory. Charge No.2 referred to above was dropped. The petitioner was imposed the punishment as already noted. Apart from challenging the punishment on merits, the counsel for the petitioner would urge that though proceeded against under Rule 8 for award of minor penalty, the punishment inflicted on the petitioner of stoppage of one grade increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and could not have been imposed without following the procedure prescribed for the same. Reference is made to Rule 4 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules to point out that withholding of increment or pay without cumulative effect has been termed as a minor penalty under Rule 4 whereas withholding of increment of pay with cumulative effect is a major penalty. Concededly, the petitioner was imposed punishment of withholding of increment with cumulative effect. This punishment was imposed on the petitioner by following the procedure as prescribed in Rule 8. Rule 8 of the Rules deals with the procedure for imposing the minor Civil Writ Petition No. 4941 of 1990 3 penalty. The procedure for imposing major penalty is regulated by Rule 7 of the Rules. For imposing the major penalty person is required to be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in this regard. Rule 7.2 further provides that a person if charged will be entitled to cross examine the witnesses, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called, as he may wish. It is thus clear that for imposing major penalty holding of inquiry is an essential requirement. Concededly, the present punishment has been inflicted on the petitioner without following procedure as given in Rule 7 for award of major penalty. The petitioner was thus deprived of the procedural safeguard provided under law. Any punishment inflicted without following the due process of law as prescribed in the Rule cannot be allowed to stand. In the case of Kulwant Singh Gill versus The State of Punjab 1990 (6) SLR 73, stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, which is in perpetuity has been termed as major penalty. Accordingly, it has been held that punishment of withholding the increment with cumulative effect cannot be imposed without holding a regular departmental inquiry. Mere show cause and consideration of explanation was not considered sufficient, however, withholding of any increments simpliciter without cumulative effect and any hedge over it falls within the term minor penalty. For such a punishment show cause notice and consideration of explanation meets the test of the principles of natural justice. In this view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the punishment of withholding of an increment with cumulative effect Civil Writ Petition No. 4941 of 1990 4 cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The recovery as imposed in the impugned order shall, however, stand. The petitioner would be entitled to consequential relief on account of setting aside of the punishment of stoppage of increment awarded to him with cumulative effect. If the pension of the petitioner is required to be re- fixed in any manner in terms of the present order, the same shall be done within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The necessary consequences of payment of any arrears shall also be calculated and released to the petitioner within this period. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. November 12, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE