Civil Writ Petition No. 4883 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4883 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.8.2009 Asha Rani ...petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. C.M. No. 7912 of 2009 Application allowed. Documents taken on record. Civil Writ Petition No. 4883 of 2009 The petitioner was appointed to the post of Office Secretary-ship Hindi/Instructor with the respondent-department in December, 2002. On 24.3.2006, she was placed under suspension. The suspension period continued till 23.3.2007 and she was paid 75% of the salary as subsistence allowance. The inquiry was also held and charges against the petitioner were proved on 10.7.2007. On 13.8.2007, she was issued a show cause notice requiring her to explain as to why her two annual increments may not be withheld with cumulative effect. On 25.9.2007, the petitioner was reinstated in to service with immediate effect. The petitioner submitted her reply to the show cause notice. She was heard and after hearing, the punishment of warning to be recorded in her service record was Civil Writ Petition No. 4883 of 2009 (O&M) 2 proposed instead of stopping of increment as earlier proposed. Having thus concluding the proceeding against the petitioner, another order was passed directing that the period of suspension be considered as leave of kind due. This order dated 28.1.2008, as per the petitioner is passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to her. The petitioner filed an appeal against the same, which was held not maintainable and she has now filed this writ petition to impugn this part of the order. Notice is also issued for recovery of the salary paid to her. In the reply filed by the respondents, the fact that show cause notice was not issued to the petitioner while directing that the period of suspension be treated as leave of kind due, is not seriously disputed. Otherwise, it is justified that the petitioner did not even cooperate during the inquiry but still have been left with warning alone. Mr. Manuja, in support of his submission, has drawn my attention to the case of Shiv Kumar Goel versus State of Haryana and another 2007 (2) RSJ 119, where it has been held that when the order treating the suspension period is passed under Rule 7.3 of Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. 1 Part 1 without issuing show cause notice than the order is liable to be set aside. The Division Bench of this Court has observed as under: “ There is another aspect of the matter. In the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-1 (as applicable to Haryana) Chapter VII has been incorporated which deals with amongst other things the subject of suspension. Rule 7.3 lays down a comprehensive procedure for coming to a Civil Writ Petition No. 4883 of 2009 (O&M) 3 conclusion as to how the period of suspension is to be treated. The aforementioned Rule was subject matter of consideration by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.D. Gupta vs. State of Haryana, 1973 (3) SCC 149. It was held that if an order adversely affects financially then even minor penalty has to be passed after objective assessment of all relevant facts and circumstances. The aggrieved employee is required to be granted a full opportunity of hearing by issuing show cause notice. In the present case, there is no show cause notice issued to the petitioner on the subject of treatment of his period of suspension. Even on that account, the order dated 20.11.2002 (Annexure P-1) is liable to set aside.” Since the petitioner was not served with the show cause notice, the order treating this period as leave of kind due would suffer from violation of principle of natural justice. The same as such cannot be sustained. It is, therefore, set aside. The respondents, however, are given liberty to pass a fresh order after serving show cause notice to the petitioner and after affording her liberty of hearing. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. August 06, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE