CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18356 OF 1991 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 12, 2011 Smt.Tripta Kumari .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and another ....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. H. N. Mehtani, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon Smt.Tripta Kumari, an employee of Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana on 25.11.1987/23.12.1987. Her appeal against this order was rejected on 10.5.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a petition before the Hon'ble Minister of the Department, which was filed on the ground that the second appeal was not provided for. The petitioner thereafter submitted memorial to the Governor, Haryana against this order, which was rejected on the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18356 OF 1991 :{ 2 }: ground of delay. The petitioner accordingly has impugned the order imposing punishment as well as the orders whereby her appeal and memorial were rejected. The petitioner was appointed as an English Teacher in 1974. On 5.5.1986, she was served a charge sheeted under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 (for short “the Rules”). The petitioner was accused of not comply with the orders issued by the Principal. Besides she was accused of being in the habit of absenting herself and coming to the institution and leaving the same at her own will. The petitioner was asked to submit reply to the charge sheet. Since this required examination of voluminous record, the petitioner made a written request for making these documents available to her. Third November, 1986 was fixed as the date of inspection of these documents. The petitioner complains that despite being detained for five days at Chandigarh, she was shown just a few documents and accordingly she left for her place of posting. The petitioner had then sent a registered letter stating that the record which was not traceable may kindly be traced and thereafter petitioner be allowed inspection thereof. The petitioner has further long list of grievances. As per the petitioner, no list of witnesses or documents relied upon were supplied to her alongwith the charge sheet. She made repeated requests for supply of list of documents. The petitioner alleges that in this arbitrary and illegal manner, ex-parte decision was taken on 25.11.1987 to impose punishment of stoppage of one increment with CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18356 OF 1991 :{ 3 }: cumulative effect and the copy thereof was endorsed to her on 23.12.1987. The petitioner filed an appeal which was rejected, as already noticed, and so also her memorial submitted to Governor. She had then filed this writ petition to challenge this order. In the reply filed, the respondent-State had raised a preliminary objection on the ground that writ petition is barred by limitation. It is also stated that petitioner had disobeyed the orders of her superiors from time to time and had remained absent from duty on several occasions. The petitioner is also accused of not taking interest in teaching the students as reported by the Principal. Other averments made in the petition are also contested. The counsel for the petitioner has urged a solitary ground to challenge this punishment. As per the counsel, stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty, but was awarded without holding any enquiry. Submission is that this is enough to vitiate the punishment without anything more. In the reply filed, it is conceded that Punishing Authority had imposed punishment without holding any enquiry. As per the respondents, the petitioner was charge sheeted under Rule 8 of the Rules and as such enquiry was not mandatory. Respondents maintain that there was no necessity to provide the list of witnesses, but, however, necessary record was shown to the petitioner. Justifying the punishment, it is also stated that full opportunity was given to the petitioner of personal hearing at the time of deciding the appeal and hence there is no violation of principle of natural justice. The short question that would arise for consideration is CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18356 OF 1991 :{ 4 }: whether the procedure adopted by the respondents to impose this penalty without holding an enquiry is legal and proper. The answer to this question would depend upon the fact whether the penalty imposed is major or minor penalty. If the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is major penalty, then respondents were under legal obligation to hold the enquiry before imposing this punishment. The issue, in my view, is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, 1991(2) SCT 30 (SC) 9 has held that stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect falls within the meaning of 5(v) of the Punishment and Appeals Rules and would amount to major penalty and, thus, regular enquiry would be a must to impose this penalty. Without enquiry, no punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, as such, could be ordered. Rules 8 and 9 of the Rules clearly envisages the procedure to conduct an enquiry into the misconduct before ordering stoppage of increment with cumulative effect. In view of this authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill (supra), there is no need to go into this issue further. Once the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative has been held to be a major penalty, the same could not have been imposed without holding enquiry. Concededly, this punishment was imposed on the petitioner without holding enquiry and as such the same would be rendered illegal and being in violation of the procedure established by law. On this short CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18356 OF 1991 :{ 5 }: ground, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set-aside. Consequently, the order dated 10.5.1989 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner is also set aside. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. July 12, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE