C.W.P. No. 10084 of 2006 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 10084 of 2006 Date of Decision: 1.4.2008 Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. …Petitioner Versus Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and Another. …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: None for the Petitioner. Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner has sought quashing of order dated 24.2.2004 (Annexure P14) passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala whereby he held that respondent No.2 Sudesh Kumar has been condemned unheard, and, order/action involving civil consequences cannot be sustained as Punishing Authority had not adhered to the principles of natural justice. Appeal was accepted. The grievance made in the present writ petition is that while accepting the appeal instead of remanding the case to the Punishing Authority for following the principles of natural justice, a direction has C.W.P. No. 10084 of 2006 2 been given to the petitioner-Corporation to grant all benefits to respondent No.2-appellant. Briefly stated that on 16.3.1992, respondent No.2 was charged for charging less octroi and causing financial loss to the Corporation. A detailed enquiry was held and thereafter dismissal of respondent No.2 from the service was ordered. However, in an appeal findings of enquiry report were upheld but the punishment of dismissal was held to be excessive and on the quantum of punishment to respondent No.2 case was remanded and respondent No.2 was ordered to be heard. Thereafter, punishment was reduced from dismissal to stoppage of two annual increments vide order dated 21.2.1997 (Annexure P7). The order of stoppage of two annual increments was again challenged. This Court while disposing of C.W.P. No. 13966 of 2001 directed the Municipal Corporation to decide the Show Cause Notice given to respondent No.2 after granting him sufficient opportunity of plausible hearing. The Punishing Authority came to conclusion that the punishment of censure be awarded and period for which respondent No.2 remained out of service due to dismissal be subjected to application of principle of “No Work No Pay”. This, order dated 4.12.2002 (Annexure P13) has been set aside vide impugned order dated 24.2.2004 (Annexure P14). After perusal of record and hearing learned counsel , we are of the view that while setting aside the order of Punishing Authority the Appellate Authority observed that the principles of natural justice have not been followed. The Appellate Authority committed a grave error in observing that all benefits should accrue to respondent No.2 who during C.W.P. No. 10084 of 2006 3 the enquiry was held guilty. It was desirable that while accepting the appeal, Appellate Authority should have remanded back the case to the Punishing Authority to decide quantum of punishment after hearing delinquent official i.e. respondent No.2. Therefore, we modify the impugned order dated 24.2.2004 (Annexure P14) and accept the same to the extent that principles of natural justice should be adhered to and order dated 4.12.2002 (Annexure P13) qua the part of the impugned order (Annexure P14) that all benefits should accrue to respondent No.2 is set aside. The Punishing Authority after hearing the delinquent official will determine the quantum of punishment taking in account background of previous litigation. Disposed off in above terms. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge April 1, 2008 “DK”