IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.945 of 2008 Date of Decision: 16.12.2008 The Punjab State through the Collector, Jalandhar and others .... Appellants vs. Ex. Constable Dilbag Singh No.4-C/348 .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla. Present: Mr. H.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the respondent. **** Rajive Bhalla, J, (Oral) The State of Punjab challenges the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2007, passed by the District Judge, Jalandhar accepting the appeal filed by the respondent, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and as a result decreeing the suit filed by the respondent. The point at issue lies within a narrow compass. Admittedly, while considering the punishment to be imposed, the punishing authority relied upon punishments already awarded and adverse entries already recorded, in the respondent's service record. The first appellate court after placing reliance upon Rule 16.24 (vii) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') and upon a judgment of this Court reported as State of Haryana vs. Mohinder Partap (1997 (1) RSJ 727) held that the order of punishment is illegal as adverse entries and punishments were taken into consideration without conveying a copy or at least a gist of the adverse entries to the respondent. Counsel for the appellants submits that adverse entries and prior punishments, if perused, would satisfy this Court that the respondent's RSA No.945 of 2008 -2- dismissal is imperative. The first appellate court should, therefore, have upheld the order of punishment as minor infractions of procedure do not render departmental proceedings void. It is submitted that in the absence of any plea or evidence that failure to follow the procedure prescribed by Rule 16.24(vii) of the Rules has led to any prejudice to the respondent, the first appellate court should not have set aside the order of punishment. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that prejudice is writ large on the procedure adopted by the punishing authority. The respondent was unaware that the punishing authority would consider adverse entries and prior punishments to fortify its order. It is, therefore, submitted that the first appellate court was right in accepting the appeal. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree. Rule 16.24 (vii) of the Rules reads as follows:- “The enquiring officer shall proceed to pass orders of acquittal or punishment, if empowered to do so, or to forward the case with his finding and recommendations to an officer having the necessary powers. Whenever the officer passing the orders of punishment proposes to take into consideration the adverse entries on the previous record of the accused police officer, he shall provide reasonable opportunity to the defaulter to defend himself : and a copy or at least a gist of those entries shall be conveyed to the defaulter and he shall be asked to give such explanation as he may deem fit. The explanation furnished by the defaulter shall be taken into account by the officer before passing orders in the case.“ Admittedly, and as held by the first appellate court the procedure prescribed under Rule 16.24 (vii) has not been followed by the appellant. The punishing authority while directing the respondent's dismissal has relied upon adverse entries and prior punishments without RSA No.945 of 2008 -3- conveying the adverse entries or the gist thereof to the respondent and thereafter affording a reasonable opportunity, to the respondent, to put forth his explanation, as required by Rule 16.24(vii). The question that falls for adjudication is whether the admitted failure of the appellants to comply with Rule 16.24 (vii) of the Rules has led to such a degree of prejudice to the respondent, as would suffice to set aside the order of punishment. An officer faces departmental proceedings for specified infractions of duty that are reduced into specific charges. The enquiry officer submits a report for or against the alleged charges. A notice is thereafter issued to the delinquent, requiring him to show cause why punishment be not awarded for charges stated to have been established by the enquiry officer. The delinquent official thereafter replies to the show cause putting forth his explanation. Where the punishing authority proposes to take into consideration adverse remarks and punishments awarded, Rule 16.24(vii) prescribes that the delinquent shall be conveyed the adverse entries or a gist thereof. Rule 16.24(vii) incorporates a salutary tenet of law that a delinquent official must be informed of all relevant circumstances likely to be pressed into service against him, while considering the punishment to be awarded. Failure to follow such a course, as is prescribed by Rule 16.24 (vii) of the Rules, in my considered opinion would inher a fundamental prejudice to the right of every defaulter/delinquent official to put forth his defence against the adverse reports and punishment likely to be used against him. Rule 16.24(vii) is founded upon principles of fairness in administrative action and violation thereof would render the order of punishment void. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, as the first appellate court has granted liberty to the appellants, to proceed afresh from the stage of considering the proposed punishment, the respondent's reinstatement, RSA No.945 of 2008 -4- back wages etc. shall be kept in abeyance till the punishing authority passes a fresh order. The punishing authority shall pass a fresh order within three months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 16.12.2008 (Rajive Bhalla) sk Judge