Regular Second Appeal No. 2072 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2072 of 1990 Date of decision: May 17, 2010 Om Parkash Jain ...Appellant Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The appellant was working as JBT teacher in the Education department Haryana. He was placed under suspension by Director Public Instructions on 24.07.1980 when it was reported that the appellant was doing private practice in medicine. Subsequently, however, he was reinstated on 12.01.1981 without payment of subsistence allowance. The appellant was also issued a show cause notice under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal Rules) (hereinafter referred to 'Rules') with the allegation given in the list of charges vide memo dated 26.3.1981. It was alleged that without considering the representation, the District Education Officer directed stoppage of two increments on 12.6.1981 which was without cumulative effect. The appellant preferred the departmental appeal against this order, which was dismissed by the DPI and the Regular Second Appeal No. 2072 of 1990 2 Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Education Department, Haryana. The appellant has a grievance that outcome of this appeal was not communicated to him. It was also alleged that some adverse remarks were endorsed in the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant in the year 1979-80 and in the subsequent years. He accordingly challenged the order dated 12.06.1981 primarily on the ground that the District Education Officer had relied upon an inquiry, as can be made from the show cause noticed issued, copy of which was not supplied to him. The respondent contested the suit and filed the written statement. It is pleaded that the appellant was awarded a minor penalty, after issuing a show cause notice, which was as per the procedure prescribed in this regard. The trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the order dated 12.6.1981 passed by District Education Officer, Karnal by which two increments of the plaintiff were stopped without cumulative effect and the order of the Appellate Authority, if any, is illegal, against the natural justice, malafide, without reason and against the provision of Rule 8 of (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1952? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff has not availed the departmental Regular Second Appeal No. 2072 of 1990 3 remedies, if so, to what effect? OPD. 6. Relief. The impugned order was declared illegal by the trial Court against which the State filed an appeal. The appeal was allowed and so the appellant has filed the present appeal against the same. Before me also, the primary submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the appellant before passing the order of punishment of stoppage of increments. Concededly, the punishment awarded is the minor punishment and could be awarded by following the procedure under Rule 8 of the rules. The inquiry to which reference is made, perhaps is a report made by District Education Officer reporting that the appellant was indulging in private practice. I have perused the report but could not find any order whereby any charge sheet was issued to the appellant or that any inquiry officer was detailed to inquire into the allegation. The record would show that initially the appellant was placed under suspension and upon his reinstatement, he was served a show cause notice for awarding minor penalty under Rule 8 of the rules. After considering his reply, the punishment was so imposed. It could not be shown from the pleadings that any inquiry was held under Rule 8 as is projected. The First Appellate Court rightly found that the principle of natural justice were duly followed while imposing this punishment. It is conceded that the appellant has since retired. It was a minor penalty of stoppage of two increments effect of which is over long ago. Any decision even in setting aside of this punishment would not lead to any change for advantage to the appellant. No Regular Second Appeal No. 2072 of 1990 4 violation of principle of natural justice is seen as is being urged. No substantial question of law is brought to my notice by the counsel. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. May 17, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE