Regular Second Appeal No. 2218 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2218 of 2009 Date of Decision: 28.5.2009 *** Siri Ram .. Appellant VS. DHBVNL & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Manoj Chahal, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. There is a delay of 30 days in filing the present appeal. Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and aforesaid delay is condoned. The appellant-plaintiff, by way of present appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(for brevity 'the Code'), is challenging the judgment and decree rendered by the first appellate Court below, dismissing his suit which initially was decreed by the learned trial Court and the order imposing minor punishment upon the plaintiff was set aside with liberty to the Department to take decision afresh by holding enquiry as per law. The grouse of the plaintiff is to the effect that irrespective of the fact that he was issued charge sheet for contemplating action against him under Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 read with Regulation 7 of Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations 1990 (for short, Regulations 1990), he was awarded minor punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect, without holding regular departmental enquiry. Regulation 1990 envisages procedure for inflicting major penalties and under sub-Rule (8) an exception has been provided, which reads as under:- “8. Where an employee has been charge-sheeted Regular Second Appeal No. 2218 of 2009 2 under this regulation and the competent Authority, on receipt of his reply to the charge sheet, is of the opinion that no major punishment as laid down in Regulation 4 (vi to x) is called for, it may be dispense with the holding of enquiry and inflict straightway any of the minor penalties as laid down in Clause (i) to (v) of the ibid Regulation by a speaking order.” Admittedly, the service conditions of the respondent were governed by Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1990. A close scrutiny to the Regulations of 1990 reveals that irrespective of the fact that a charge-sheet under Rule 7 regarding imposition of major penalty is served, the competent Authority can impose minor punishment by dispensing with the holding of an enquiry. Once there are specific criteria provided in the Rules and Regulations to dispense with the holding of a regular departmental enquiry, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to say that the approach of the Department is prejudicial to his rights. There is nothing on record which is suggestive of the fact that prior to imposing the said punishment, the principles of natural justice were not adhered to. The Department was well within its right in not holding a regular departmental enquiry against the delinquent-plaintiff, considering his reply and in straightway imposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect, which falls within the ambit of minor penalties, as defined under Rule 4(A)(iii) of the Regulations of 1990. In this regard reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. A. Prahalada Rao & Anr. Reported as AIR 2001(SC) 51 and a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Pankaj Bhushan Vs. Managing Director DBVHNL & Ors., RSA No.1741 of 2007, decided on 24.4.2008. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant appeal and the same stands dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 28,2009 Jiten