Regular Second Appeal No. 3472 of 1985 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3472 of 1985 Date of decision: 16.02.2010 State of Punjab ...appellant Versus Shri Premjit and another ...respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the appellant. Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. This order will dispose of two Regular Second Appeal i.e. Regular Second Appeal Nos. 3472 and 3583 of 1985. It is routine now to observe that in the RSA filed by the State and pending before this Court, no substantial question of law is ever formulated. This is so despite the fact that in some of the cases, time was afforded to the State to formulate the question of law. This is also one such case where again no substantial question of law is formulated. Though this appeal filed by the State is liable to be dismissed on this short ground yet that course is not adopted, as in the connected appeal filed by the employee conductor one question of law is formulated. Besides, the violation of the procedural law to impose the major penalty would be another Regular Second Appeal No. 3472 of 1985 2 substantial question of law, which may arise in this case, in addition to what was formulated as a substantial question of law by the employee, which reads as under:- “Whether the orders imposing penalty of stoppage of annual grade increment with cumulative effect passed on various dates will run consecutively or concurrently?” Through the suit filed, Premjit, who was working as Conductor in Punjab Roadways, Batala, District Gurdaspur, challenged 13 different orders of punishment. 12 orders out of these were those where 3/2/1 increments were ordered to be stopped with cumulative effect whereas one order was where 5 increments were stopped without any cumulative effect. The details of these orders with the punishment as awarded are as under:- 1. No. 1370/Steno/GM dtd. 11.9.75 (Three increments were stopped) 2. No. 1555/Steno/GM dtd. 28.10.75 (Two increments were stopped) 3. No. 1685/Steno/GM dtd. 19.11.75 (one increment was stopped) 4. No. 1687/Steno/GM dtd. 19.11.75 (Two increments were stopped) 5. No. 481/Steno/GM dtd. 29.4.76 (Three increments were stopped) 6. No. 1559/Steno/GM dtd. 7.10.76 (One increment was stopped) 7. No. 9195/GM/Steno dtd. 7.9.77 (Two increments were stopped) 8. No. 183/TA dtd. 24.1.78 (One increment was stopped) 9. No. 2940/TA dtd. 9.2.77 (Two increments were stopped) 10.No. 9644/TA dtd. 11.10.77 (One increment was stopped) 11.No. 2080/TA dtd. 14.8.78 (one increment was stopped) 12.No. 2937/TA dtd. 27.12.78 (Three increments were stopped) Regular Second Appeal No. 3472 of 1985 3 13. No. 5163-67/ECC dtd. 14.7.81 of defdt No. 3 and No. 16516- 17/DMT/(appeal 42) dt. 30.11.81 (Five increments were stopped) The first 12 orders as noted above were set aside by the trial Court on the ground that major penalty was imposed on the employee without holding any regular inquiry. These punishments, as can be seen from the record were awarded just after issuing a show cause notice. The record would also show that the employee, who was working as Conductor was proceeded against for very trivial allegations of not charging the fare from the passengers, which varied from Rs. 5/- to Rs. 1/- or in some cases few paisa. Total amount in all the 13 allegations was about Rs. 17/-. The State as well as the employee filed an appeal against the order passed by the trial Court and the First Appellate court set aside the order in 7 cases as given below: 1. Order No. 1370/Steno/GM dated 11.9.75 whereby three increments were stopped. 2. Order No. 1559/Steno/GM dated 7.10.76 whereby one increment was stopped. 3. Order No. 9195/GM/Steno dated 7.9.77 whereby two increments with cumulative effect were stopped 4. Order No. 183/TA dated 24.1.78 whereby One increment with cumulative effect was stopped 5. Order No. 9644/TA dated 10.10.77 whereby One increment with cumulative effect was stopped 6. Order No. 2937/TA dated 27.12.78 whereby three increments with Regular Second Appeal No. 3472 of 1985 4 cumulative effect were stopped. 7. Order No. 1685/Steno/GM dated 19.11.75 whereby one increment was stopped. Order No. 1687/GM/Steno dated 19.11.75 whereby two increments were stopped. However, the remaining orders were upheld that is why, both the parties are in appeal before this Court through the two Regular Second Appeals, which are being disposed of by this common order. The short question that would arise for consideration is whether the major penalty could be awarded to the respondent- employee without holding regular inquiry. There may have been some doubt on the basis of some judgment when this case was filed in the year 1985 or so. The trial Court had then placed reliance on Balkar Singh versus Chief Engineer Public Works Departments, Punjab Health, Patiala and another 1983 (2) SLR 684, to say that the stoppage of increment with cumulative effect would amount to major punishment and thus procedure for awarding the major penalty was required to be followed. The First Appellate Court, however, took a different view and said that the service of a show cause notice and passing the order after obtaining the reply thereto would suffice. Still the appellate Court set aside some of the orders, where it found that the explanation offered by the employee was not properly considered. There would not be much requirement now to go into this Regular Second Appeal No. 3472 of 1985 5 legal aspect. By now it is fully settled that for awarding major penalty, holding of an inquiry is a legal necessity. The procedure for award of major penalty is given in Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 ( hereinafter referred to as an 'Rules') reading of which would clearly substantiate this part of the submissions made before me. The State counsel also could not point out anything against this proposition of law that for awarding major penalty, the State and the Department would be under obligation to hold an inquiry as stipulated by Rule 8 of the rules. In view of this settled position, the punishment awarded to the employee from Serial Nos. 1 to 12 cannot be upheld and would require to be set aside. It may also be noticed that 7 orders out of these have already been set aside. Accordingly, the following 5 orders would also stand set aside being violative of principle of natural justice as well as being in violation of the statutory provisions:- 1. No. 1555/Steno/GM dated 28.10.75 whereby two increments were stopped. 2. No. 481/Steno/GM dated 29.4.76 whereby three increments were stopped. 3. No. 2940/TA dated 9.2.77 whereby two increments were stopped 4. No. 5163-67/ECC dated 14.7.81 of defdt No. 3 and No. 16516- 17/DMT/(appeal 42) dated 30.11.81 whereby five increments were stopped. The counsel for the employee, however, submits that the punishment dated 24.1.1978 at serial No. 8 was only a minor penalty Regular Second Appeal No. 3472 of 1985 6 where one increment was stopped without cumulative effect. The proper procedure was followed while awarding this punishment. This was rightly upheld by the First Appellate Court. No interference in this is called for. The plea of limitation though not pressed on behalf of the State appears to have been rightly decided. Even otherwise, the counsel for the employee would draw my attention to the case of Malkiat Singh versus State of Haryana 2007 (4) SCT 801, where this Court has taken a view that order of stoppage of increment was passed as a measure of punishment in complete violation of principle of natural justice would give a concurrent cause of action every month when the person is not granted increment. Accordingly, it is held that there would be no limitation. This view that it will give concurrent cause every month when the increment which was due was not granted on the basis of punishment awarded which was in complete violation of principle of natural justice, would be a added reason not to go into the aspect of limitation. Even otherwise, the limitation is not that substantial question of law which would be called for adjudication in the present RSA. As a result, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed. The appeal filed by the employee, Premjit, is partly allowed in the above noted terms. The decree sheet on this basis be prepared. February 16, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE