IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 23037 of 2010 Date of Decision: 22.12.2010. A.K. Rana --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana who is present in the Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Petitioner is serving as an Environmental Engineer in the Haryana State Pollution Control Board, Panchkula. He was served with a charge sheet under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987. Charge sheet was followed by a regular inquiry envisaged under the rules. On receipt of the inquiry report petitioner was served with a memo dated 23.7.2010 asking the petitioner to file his response in regard to the inquiry report which was served upon the petitioner. In the memo the Chairman of the Pollution Control Board had mentioned that he fully agrees with the conclusion drawn by the Inquiry Officer. This memo was challenged before this Court in CWP No. 14013 of 2010 on the ground that the disciplinary authority has accepted the inquiry report even without hearing the petitioner. During the course of hearing of above writ petition Mr. H.S. Hooda, learned Advocate General, Haryana made a statement that the CWP. No. 23037 of 2010 -2- impugned notice dated 23.7.2010 be treated as withdrawn with liberty to issue a fresh notice in accordance with law. Petitioner was also granted liberty to seek remedy, if, aggrieved of the fresh notice. Consequent upon the aforesaid liberty granted to the disciplinary authority a fresh notice dated 13.9.2010 (Annexure P-9) has been issued to the petitioner herein. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice. Now the petitioner has been asked to appear before the Pollution Control Board on 24.12.2010 at 12.30 P.M vide communication dated 17.12.2010 (Annexure P-13). This communication has also been challenged in the present writ petition. The contention of Mr. Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Chiarman is inimical to the petitioner as he had challenged his appointment in CWP No. 18439 of 2008 and thus he is bent upon to punish the petitioner, though, petitioner is not guilty of any misconduct. His contention is that the petitioner will not get any justice at the hands of the Chairman and the Board headed by him. Thus, the personal hearing being afforded to the petitioner is only farsical. It is not in dispute that under the statutory regulations namely Haryana State Pollution Control Board (Grade A,B,C & D) Service Regulations, 2004 Appendix 'C' for minor penalties the Chairman is the competent authority and for major penalties Board is the competent authority. Petitioner has been issued notice under Rule 7 for major penalty. Thus, Board is the competent disciplinary authority under the statutory regulations. The Board comprises of Chairman and Members. From the composition of the Board it appears that Board comprises of nominees of CWP. No. 23037 of 2010 -3- the Govt. The apprehension of the petitioner is misplaced, however, in all fairness, it is desirable that when the Board affords hearing to the petitioner, the Chairman should recuse himself from the proceedings. This petition is accordingly disposed of in the following manner:- 1. Petitioner shall appear before the Board on the date fixed. 2. The Board comprising of Members except the Chairman shall grant hearing to the petitioner. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 22.12.2010. lucky