CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16719 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 16 ,2011 Housing Board, Haryana, Panchkula .....Petitioner VERSUS Partap Saini and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1. Mr. S. S. Patter, DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Respondent No.1, Partap Saini, was working as a Accounts Assistant, in the head office of Housing Board, Haryana, Sector 6, Panchkula. He was proceeded against for allegation of some misconduct, which included the allegation of some embezzlement. The Enquiry Officer was detailed to hold an enquiry, who recorded the evidence and thereafter gave his finding on all the seven charges levelled against respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16719 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: was held responsible for negligence of duties on some of the charges. Finding also is that respondent No.1 had no bad intention and his integrity was also not doubted. The Disciplinary Authority, however, differed with the finding returned by the Enquiry Officer and recorded a note of dissent on 3.8.2007. The copy of the dissent note has been placed on record as Annexure P-5. Counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the dissenting note to urge that the Disciplinary Authority had differed with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer for cogent and valid reasons. After recording dissenting note, the punishment of forfeiture of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed on respondent No.1, who had then filed an appeal against this order primarily on the ground that he was not given fair chance to defend himself against the punishment. His precise grievance was that the Disciplinary Authority, while recording a note of dissent, had proposed the punishment also, which would be unfair as the disciplinary authority was first to consider the pleas of respondent No.1 and then return a finding followed by punishment, if needed. This position is stated to be a settled one. On this very ground, respondent No.1 had filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set-aside the punishment. The Board has now filed this writ petition with a grievance that even if there was some defect in the manner in which the punishment was imposed, the Board could be given liberty to redo the exercise from the stage where some defect had crept in, as CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16719 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: otherwise a serious misconduct on the part of respondent No.1 would go unpunished. I have gone through the nature of allegations made against respondent No.1. No doubt, some of the allegations may appear to be regarding embezzlement etc. but fact remains that these allegations could not be established during the course of enquiry. The petitioner was exonerated of majority of the allegations and was held responsible only for some negligence. No finding in regard to lack of integrity was noticed. A perusal of the dissent note would show that no valid reasons have been stated therein to differ with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Apparently, the dissent note is not based on any material but is an opinion of the Disciplinary Authority. This may not be a fair manner to express a dissent note with finding recorded after due enquiry. Otherwise also, the Disciplinary Authority proposed the punishment in the note itself, which would appear to be in violation of principles of natural justice. As per the settled law, a person must first be given reason for which the finding recorded in his favour is being differed with. Thereafter, the competent authority is to decide and give a finding on the allegation made. Another opportunity thereafter may be needed before awarding any punishment. The procedure, as adopted, thus was not fair and was rightly interfered with by the Appellate Authority. Not much grievance is made against the mode as adopted by the Appellate Authority. As per the Board, liberty was required to be given to the Board to proceed with the matter from the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.16719 OF 2008 :{ 4 }: stage where some defect or infirmity is noticed in the procedure. That is also one of the courses, which can be permitted in some cases. Primarily, it is to be seen as to what relief should be granted in such cases, where it is noticed that violation is such that the same has caused a grave injustice to a party and has caused a serious prejudice , then a liberty to continue with the proceedings from the stage of infirmity can be permitted. In some of the cases, such infirmity may not have made any difference to the ultimate result and hence, to permit a party to continue with the proceedings or award punishment afresh may operate harshly. The respondents in this case had certainly come to acquire certainly rights and was able to vindicate his honour successfully. Permitting the petitioner now to redo the exercise and to award punishment to the respondents may lead to doing injustice to the case and the cause of the respondents. Present case is not such where there are some serious allegations are going unpunished. It is not a case of any serious failure of justice. The petitioner Board would have battery of legal experts to fall back for advice and can certainly be expected to be aware of the legal position. The authority exercising the power otherwise also may not be able to plead ignorance of law as an excuse to seek correction. I do not find this to be a fit case, calling for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. February 16,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE