IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 6312 of 1990 Date of Decision: September 13, 2010 S.C. Dass …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondent. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. It is conceded position that the petitioner, while serving as Sub Divisional Officer in the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula (for brevity, ‘the Board’), was issued a charge sheet under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’), vide Memo. dated 3.12.1985, levelling the allegations that he in connivance with one Shri Virender Kumar, Clerk, allowed purchases of different stores, whereas actually no purchases were effected and also arranged bogus bills (P-2). The petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet and denied the allegations. Without conducting any regular CWP No. 6312 of 1990 departmental inquiry, the Chief Administrator of the Board passed an order dated 27.5.1987, inflicting the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect upon the petitioner (P-3). The petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 42 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (as amended from time to time), against the order dated 27.5.1987, which was rejected by the Government vide order dated 29.8.1989 (P-7). Thereafter, the review filed by the petitioner also met the same fate, vide order dated 1.3.1990 (P-8). The petitioner has challenged the aforementioned orders, inter alia, on the ground that no regular departmental inquiry was held and, therefore, the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect could not have been inflicted as it is major penalty. For inflicting major penalty, a regular departmental inquiry has to be held. It has remained undisputed that no regular departmental inquiry was held against the petitioner. 2. After hearing learned counsel we are of the considered view that under Rule 4 of the Rules the punishment envisaged is stoppage of increment without any further rider whether ‘with or without cumulative effect’. The aforesaid punishment figures under the list of minor penalties. The aforesaid rule came up for interpretation before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504 and it has been held that under the heading of minor penalty of Rule 4, the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect cannot be inflicted because it has serious consequences affecting permanently the salary, pension and other retiral benefits. Such a punishment cannot be inflicted without holding a regular departmental 2 CWP No. 6312 of 1990 inquiry in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules. Accordingly, the order dated 27.5.1987, 29.8.1989 and 1.3.1990 (P-3, P-7 & P-8) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 3. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds. Orders dated 27.5.1987, 29.8.1989 and 1.3.1990 (P-3, P-7 & P-8) are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, which may be calculated and paid to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) September 13, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3