1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3974 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.5.2009 *** Punjab State Warehousing Corporation & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Baldev Singh .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Gurmender Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the respondent. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Heard. Delay of 27 days in re-filing the present appeal stands condoned. The defendant-Corporation and others have come up in this second appeal and have laid challenge to the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court below vide which the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, has been set aside and the suit has been ordered to be decreed. The plaintiff filed the suit and challenged the punishment order whereby recovery of Rs.53,345/- and stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon him. The stand of the defendant that due to negligence of the plaintiff there was a loss of paddy, resulting into suffering of pecuniary loss to the Corporation to the tune of Rs.53,345/- and therefore, the recovery of the same was imposed besides punishing the plaintiff for remaining negligence in discharging of his duties by stopping his one annual increment without cumulative effect. As said above, the trial Court dismissed the suit by observing that there is no illegality or perversity in the order imposing punishment 2 upon the plaintiff. On an appeal, preferred by the plaintiff, the learned first appellate Court below while relying upon the provisions of Rule 17 of Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, concluded that since the Corporation did not adhere to the provisions of Rule 17 which envisages of framing of charges besides holding of regular enquiry in the matter, therefore, the punishment order is void and accordingly set aside the same, however, gave liberty to the Corporation to conduct fresh enquiry against the plaintiff in the light of provisions of Rule 17 ibid. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant at the threshold points out that while passing the impugned judgment, the first appellate Court below has taken into consideration the un-amended provisions of Rule 17, which have been amended vide Notification dated 3.12.1990( taken on record as Annexure A-1) wherein it has been provided that the punishment of recovery of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by the employee to the Corporation by negligence or breach of orders of storage loss/ less storage be treated as minor punishment and no regular enquiry is required to be conducted in that case. There is force in the argument. In the present case the plaintiff was served with show cause notice dated 30.10.2000, to which he admittedly replied on 24.11.2000 and after consideration thereof the said punishment was imposed upon him vide the impugned order dated 11.4.2001. In the un-amended Rules, the imposition of punishment of stoppage of increment was prescribed as minor punishment, for which there was no requirement of conducting a full fledged enquiry while in case of recovery of pecuniary loss, it was provided to conduct regular enquiry. But after the amendment incorporate vide Notification Annexure A-1, the punishment of recovery of pecuniary loss has been treated as a minor punishment and has to be dealt with the procedure as envisaged in the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. Thus, in the light of amended provisions, the regular enquiry is not a pre-requisite and what is essential is providing due opportunity to the delinquent to specify his stand. In the light of above discussion, the judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court below is not sustainable and 3 consequently the same is set aside. However, the matter is remanded back to the first appellate Court below to decide the matter afresh in the light of amended rules, as discussed above, without being influenced from any observations made hereinabove. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear over there on 20.7.2009. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 25,2009 Jiten