Regular Second Appeal No. 1397 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1397 of 2008 Date of Decision: 24.4.2009 *** Executive Engineer, City Division, UHBVN .. Appellant VS. Ram Mehar & ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The appellant Nigam, by way of present appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(for brevity 'the Code'), is challenging concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below while relying upon the cases of K.G. Tiwari Vs. State of Haryana 2002(3) RSJ 296 and Randhir Singh Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board 2003(3) RSJ 606, holding, that its action of imposing minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without future effect upon the plaintiff is illegal, null and void and against the spirit of Rules of 1987 and while setting aside the said order dated 31.7.2002 the appellant and others have been directed to restore the increment of the plaintiff with all consequential benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum. However, liberty has been given to the appellant to hold a fresh enquiry against the respondent No.1, if they are desirous of doing so. The factual aspect of the matter is not in dispute. Concededly, the plaintiff was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 7 of Rules of 1987 for alleged mis-conduct and dereliction of duties for imposing major Regular Second Appeal No. 1397 of 2008 2 punishment, to which he submitted the reply and on appraisal thereof the competent authority straightway imposed the minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without future effect upon him. The appeal of the plaintiff against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Now what the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant Board has enacted Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations 1990 (for short, Regulations 1990) and Rule 7 whereof envisages procedure for inflicting major penalties and under sub-Rule (8) an exception has been provided, which reads as under:- “8. Where an employee has been charge-sheeted under this regulation and the competent Authority, on receipt of his reply to the charge sheet, is of the opinion that no major punishment as laid down in Regulation 4 (vi to x) is called for, it may be dispense with the holding of enquiry and inflict straightway any of the minor penalties as laid down in Clause (i) to (v) of the ibid Regulation by a speaking order.” Thus, it has been contended that the appellant Board was well within its right in not holding the regular departmental enquiry against the delinquent-plaintiff, considering his reply and in straightway imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, which falls within the ambit of minor penalties, as defined under Rule 4(A)(iii) of the Regulations of 1990 and a reference has been made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. A. Prahalada Rao & Anr. and a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Pankaj Bhushan Vs. Managing Director DBVHNL & Ors., RSA No.1741 of 2007, decided on 24.4.2008. While on the other hand, on the strength of judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Randhir Singh's case (supra), it has been contended by learned counsel for respondent that the department cannot bye-pass the procedure of holding the regular enquiry by imposing a minor penalty, in case the charge-sheet is issued for imposing major penalty. . Regular Second Appeal No. 1397 of 2008 3 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties this Court is of the opinion that there is force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the service conditions of the respondent are governed by Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1990. A close scrutiny to the Regulations of 1990 it reveals that irrespective of the fact that a charge-sheet under Rule 7 regarding imposition of major penalty is served, the competent authority can impose minor punishment by dispensing with holding of enquiry. Once there are specific criteria provided in the Rules and Regulations to dispense with the holding of regular departmental enquiry, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent to say that the approach of the Department is prejudicial to his rights. There is nothing on record which is suggestive of the fact that prior to imposing said punishment, the principles of natural justice were not adhered to. Even the respondent cannot derive any benefit from Randhir Singh's case (supra) since at the time of passing of said judgment, the scope and spirit of Regulations of 1990 was not taken into consideration, which admittedly governs the service conditions of the respondent. Rather Pankaj Bhushan's case (supra) squarely covers the controversy raised in the present appeal. Having considered the regulation that applies to the facts of the present case, I find that the regulation provides for dispensing with the regular enquiry in case any of the minor punishments is to be imposed. As already observed above, the principles of natural justice have been complied with and having found that the impugned action of the appellant is within the framework of rule, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the Courts below have wrongly set aside the impugned order imposing minor punishment. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed and by setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, it is held that order dated 31.7.2002 is perfectly legal and in consonance with the Regulations, governing the service conditions of the respondent. The suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed accordingly. No costs. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 24,2009 Jiten