C.W.P NO. 3685 OF 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 3685 OF 1992 DECIDED ON : 06.05.2009 Samay Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : None for the petitioner. Mr. R. D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 08.08.1989 and 27.03.1991 (Annexures P-3 and P-4), whereby punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect, besides recovery of Rs.1617/92- has been imposed upon him and his appeal has already been dismissed. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Junior Engineer in the respondent-department. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 16.07.1987 (Annexure P-1) under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (in short “the 1987 Rules”), inter-alia, alleging that he C.W.P NO. 3685 OF 1992 -2- failed in getting the work of two government schools executed as per the prescribed norms and caused loss of Rs.3285/85- to the State Exchequer. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said charge- sheet. His reply, however, was held to be unsatisfactory by the Engineer-in-Chief, Haryana, who vide his impugned order dated 08.08.1989 imposed the above-mentioned punishment. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the State government but that was also turn down vide the second impugned order dated 27.03.1991. The solitary contention raised in the writ petition is that the stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty which could not be imposed without holding a regular departmental inquiry as envisaged under Rule 7 of the 1987 Rules. Learned State counsel does not dispute the fact that no regular enquiry was held against the petitioner. He, however, submits that since the stoppage of one increment without any cumulative effect is a minor punishment, this Court may invoke the doctrine of severability to set aside the impugned order to the extent of its illegality. After going through the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner and the explanation contained in his reply to the charge-sheet and keeping in view the legal position on the subject, I am of the considered view that remanding the C.W.P NO. 3685 OF 1992 -3- disciplinary proceedings for de novo start-may, at this stage, cause undue hardship to the petitioner as well prejudice to the authorities. There can be no denial to the fact that on the strength of the procedure followed by the Disciplinary Authority, some minor penalty as defined under Rule 4 of 1987 Rules could be imposed, though it was imperative to hold a regular departmental inquiry for imposing a major penalty. In a given situation, a writ Court may substitute the punishment though such a power can be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases. The fact that the departmental action was initiated against the petitioner about 20 years back, brings his case within the exceptional category. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned orders dated 08.08.1989 and 27.03.1991 (Annexures P-3 and P-4) are modified to the extent that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is reduced from 'major' to 'minor' and shall be taken as stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and the consequential benefits, if any, flowing from that shall be granted to the petitioner within a period of four months. Disposed of. MAY 06, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE