CWP No. 13389 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.13389 of 1989 Date of decision 14 .5.2009 Gurparkash Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr.S.K.Gupta ,Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Pb. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement ? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. The short issue raised in the instant petition is whether the impugned order dated 6.4.1989 (P.8) could have been passed inflicting minor penalty of recovery of Rs.3000/- against the petitioner despite the fact that charge sheet was issued to him for holding a regular departmental enquiry to inflict a major penalty. Brief facts of the case may first be noticed. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.6.1988 asking him to explain as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him as he failed to take care of the case of one Jeeta Rani, Arts and Crafts (Sewing) Teacher in the Civil Court and was thus found negligent in performing his duty. The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice wherein the stand taken by the petitioner was that the suit had been filed, decided and limitation for filing the appeal had already expired when the he took over as District CWP No. 13389 of 1989 2 Education Officer (s), Jalandhar on 20.10.1987 and despite his best efforts with the District Attorney to have the ex-parte decision set aside, the matter was not taken up by the District Attorney by saying vide letter dated 25.2.1988 that period of limitation has expired and any move at this stage would be hopelessly time barred (P.2). Despite the reply filed, a charge sheet dated 23.9.1988 (P.3) under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 for major punishment was served upon the petitioner a day before his retirement. The petitioner filed detailed reply within the stipulated period followed by separate communication giving some more details (P.4 and P.5). However, after a lapse of six months, respondent no.1 passed the impugned order dated 6.4.1989 penalising the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- as part of the damages caused to the State to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on account of the civil suit filed by Jeeta Rani. When the matter came up for consideration before the Motion Bench on 23.10.1989, the recovery was stayed till furthers orders presumably on the basis of the then prevailing law rendered in the case of State of Punjab and others v. Ch. Manmphool Singh 1986(1) SLR 484. The stay order is continuing till date and the petitioner has superannuated in the meanwhile. Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if a charge sheet has been issued then lateron minor penalty cannot be imposed without following the procedure prescribed for imposition of minor penalty. He has further submitted that in the instant case there is a complete departure from this principle which vitiates the whole proceedings. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed CWP No. 13389 of 1989 3 reliance on a judgement of this Court in the case of Ch.Manphool Singh (supra). Learned counsel has also argued that for a major penalty for which charge sheet had been issued, it was incumbent on the competent authority to order departmental enquiry where the petitioner could have inspected the records, cross-examine the witnesses and brought his version before the Enquiry Officer. In the reply filed, the facts have not been disputed. It has however, been submitted in reply to para 6(e) that the petitioner remained District Education Officer (S), Jalandhar from 10.6.1987 to 14.10.1987 and for the default to this extent he has been awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment vide order dated 3.2.1989. He has also been awarded punishment to the extent that recovery of Rs. 3000/- be made against the loss of Rs.10,000/- as he had not filed any appeal against the order of the Civil Court. In reply to para 12 it has been stated that Government suffered a heavy loss as the Court allowed Smt. Jeeta Rani the pay scale of Rs. 570- 1080 to which she was not entitled to as per audit objection and the Court decreed the suit against respondent no. 1. Smt. Jeeta Rani filed an application for execution of the decree to recover Rs.10,000/-.Taking liberal view of the matter, recovery to the extent of Rs.3,000/- was ordered to be effected from the petitioner. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the controversy raised in the instant petition is fully covered by the ratio of the judgement rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr.K.G.Tiwari v. State of Haryana and others 2002(4) SLR 329 wherein it has been held that once a charge sheet has been issued then a regular departmental enquiry is required to be held even for inflicting a CWP No. 13389 of 1989 4 minor penalty. The view taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court has been approved by the Full Bench in Dr. K.G.Tiwari's case (supra). The rationale of the Full Bench in Dr. K.G.Tiwari's case (supra) appears to be that the State Government cannot take shelter behind the provision providing for minor penalty by avoiding to hold departmental enquiry for the fear of lack of evidence. Therefore, the possibility of not proving the charge cannot result into infliction of minor penalty. The observations made by the Full Bench in para 24 reads thus: “ ..... In a case where a charge sheet is issued under Rule 7 for the imposition of a major penalty, if the disciplinary authority, after receiving the reply to the charge sheet, finds that there is no material against the chargesheeted employee and therefore, after holding of a regular enquiry, it will not be in a position to punish the chargesheeted employee, but still, for its own reasons wants to impose some punishment on him, then, the disciplinary authority will chose to adopt the methodology of dropping the procedure contemplated under Rule 7 and simply state that the explanation of the chargesheeted employee has been considered, and impose a minor punishment. This is not the object of having two different sets of procedures in the form of Rule 7 and Rule 8. The object of prescribing these rules for holding disciplinary proceedings is to protect the chargesheeted employee from arbitrary and capricious exercise of power by disciplinary authority and from unjust and illegal punishments. These Rules are intended to safeguard the rights of such chargesheeted employees and to comply with the principles of CWP No. 13389 of 1989 5 natural justice.” In view of the above enunciation of law laid down in Dr.K.G.Tiwari's case (supra), the impugned order is violative of the principles laid down therein. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Order dated 6.4.1989 (P.8) is quashed. (M.M.Kumar) 14.5.2009 Judge okg CWP No. 13389 of 1989 6