IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16653 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision:27.05.2011 Ashok Kumar ...Petitioner versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. V.K.Kaushal, Advocate, for Mr. Baldev Raj Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S.Sivia, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal upholding the punishment given to the petitioner making a stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. This was purported to be on the basis of a charge levied against the workman that he had been guilty of misappropriation and gross misconduct in not issuing tickets for the money collected from passengers, when he was working as a Conductor in the Punjab Roadways. It is an admitted fact that the Enquiry Officer had exonerated him of the charges and when the Civil Writ Petition No.16653 of 1990 (O&M) - 2 - report was sent to the General Manager, he passed a cryptic office order on 07.12.1973 disagreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and imposing a punishment which was the subject of reference to the Labour Court. 2. If the disciplinary authority was disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, he was bound to serve a notice to show cause against the decision to take a different view. This is an elementary principle of natural justice and affirmed by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL Versus B.Karunakar- (1993) 4 SCC 727. Even apart from the violation of natural justice, under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 which was applicable to the party imposition of punishment of stoppage of increment was a major penalty and held to be so while dealing with the same Rules in Kulwant Singh Gill Versus The State of Punjab-1991 (2) SCT 30. 3. The learned counsel for the State would contend that at the relevant time when the order was passed, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not been delivered and it was a common perception that imposition of cut in increments for three years with cumulative effect was treated as a minor penalty and, therefore, there was no requirement of a notice. A Supreme Court's judgment is the law stated and it will operate at all times unless the judgment itself says that it will apply only prospectively. It is immaterial that this judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pronounced subsequently. 4. At the previous hearing on 10.05.2011, when it was argued Civil Writ Petition No.16653 of 1990 (O&M) - 3 - by the counsel that the office order issued by the General Manager on 07.12.1973 clearly brought out that the Enquiry Officer had exonerated the petitioner of the alleged charges but the disciplinary authority was imposing a punishment without any notice, I had directed the petitioner to file a certified copy of the order along with the application. Counsel for the petitioner has the copy of the order but, according to him, application could not be presented in the manner directed. Since I do not want to be fettered by any technicality, I am prepared to take the certified copy that bears the seal of the Private Secretary, Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh as a document for consideration and in the light of the order, I have no doubt in my mind that the proceedings were vitiated and the imposition of punishment was in violation of principles of natural justice. I do not feel constrained to refer the matter for fresh consideration for punishment after nearly two decades. The impugned award is quashed and the petitioner is entitled to reworking of the benefits consequent on the order of stoppage of increments as invalid. 5. Needless to state that the writ petition will control the rights of only the party before this Court and not for others. This order will render invalid the proceedings of punishment order No.566, dated 07.12.1973 passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Batala qua the petitioner. 6. The writ petition is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 27.05.2011 sanjeev