R.S.A No. 517 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 517 of 2007 Date of decision : July 27, 2009 Wazir Singh, ...... Appellant (s) v. U.H.B.V.N.L through its Managing Director and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. J.K.Goel, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Narinder Hood, Advocate for the respondents. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and consequently dismissing the suit of the appellant. The admitted facts are that a charge-sheet for major penalty was issued to the appellant. On receipt of the reply, the competent authority came to the conclusion that it was a case for imposition of a minor penalty and consequently imposed the same. The appellant challenged this action. The solitary question of law raised before this Court is whether once a R.S.A No. 517 of 2007 ::2:: charge-sheet is issued for major penalty then a procedure for imposing minor penalty can be adopted and order passed accordingly ? Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported as 2003(3) RSJ 606, Randhir Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board, wherein it was held as follows :- “ 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the orders Annexures P-4, P-6, P-10 and P-20 cannot be sustained because these orders have been passed after issuance of charge- sheets under Regulation 7 of the Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulation, 1990 (herein after referred to as “regulation”). A Full Bench of this Court has considered the question as to whether after issuance of charge-sheet under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 for inflicting of major penalty, the employer is entitled to accept the explanation furnished by way of reply by the delinquent officer and impose a minor penalty without holding any inquiry. It has been held by a Full Bench that after a charge-sheet has been issued to delinquent officer for holding departmental inquiry contemplating imposition of major penalty, then no short-cut method is permissible even for imposing of minor penalty. It is not disputed that the respondent-Board has issued charge-sheet to the R.S.A No. 517 of 2007 ::3:: petitioner for imposition of major penalty and without holding an inquiry accepted his explanation for imposing minor penalty. The orders Annexures P4, P-6, P-10 and P-20 have been passed inflicting minor penalty. Therefore, it is obvious that such a course is not permissible in law as ruled by the Full Bench of this Court in CWP No.3661 of 1999 (Dr. K.G.Tiwari, SDO, Animal Husbandry (Retd) vs State of Haryana and others) decided on 20th December 2001). Therefore, these impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 3. Similarly, the orders Annexures P-15 and P-24 have been challenged on the ground that the orders do not reflect any application of mind and also lack reasons. It is well settled that under Regulation 4, even minor punishment cannot be imposed unless there are good and sufficient reasons. Reasons are sine qua non for every quasi-judicial order as they provide link between the guilt of the delinquent officer as well as the conclusion reached by the punishing authority. This aspect is also covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No.3710 of 1994 titled Digamber Singh vs Haryana State Electricity Board and another decided on 3.8.1994. Therefore, these two orders are also liable to be quashed on that ground.” Counsel for the appellant has further argued that on the same ground, RSA No.3397 of 2008 filed by the respondents stands admitted R.S.A No. 517 of 2007 ::4:: before this Court. Counsel for the respondents has relied upon two subsequent judgments of this Court rendered in RSA No.1397 of 2008, decided on 24.4.2009, Executive Engineer, City Division, UHBVN vs Ram Mehar and others, and R.S.A No.1741 of 2007 decided on 24.4.2008, Pankaj Bhushan vs Managing Director, DBVHNL & others. In Ram Mehar's case (supra), it was held as follows :- “ Now what the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant Board has enacted Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations 1990 (for short, Regulations 1990) and Rule 7 whereof 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 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.' Thus, it has been contended that the appellant Board was well within its right in not holding the regular departmental enquiry against the delinquent-plaintiff, R.S.A No. 517 of 2007 ::5:: considering his reply and in straightway imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, which falls within the ambit of minor penalties, as defined under Rule 4(A)(iii) of the Regulations of 1990 and a reference has been made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India and Ors. Vs A.Prahalada Rao & Anr. 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 Pankaj Bhushan's case (supra), it was held as follows :- “ Reliance has been placed on The HSEB Employees (Punishment & Appeal), 1990 Regulation 7 (8) of which reads as under :- `8. Where an employee has been charge sheeted 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 dispense with the holding of enquiry and inflict straight away any of the minor penalties as laid down in Clause (i) to (v) of the ibid Regulation by a speaking order.' 8. PROCEDURE FOR INFLICTING MINOR PENALTIES R.S.A No. 517 of 2007 ::6:: (a) Without prejudice to the provisions of Regulation-7, an order for inflicting minor penalty shall not be passed on an employee unless he has been given a show cause notice thereof and a reasonable opportunity of making representation there-against. If he requests for access to relevant record, it may be allowed and opportunity of personal hearing, be also given. Request for personal hearing, may be rejected by the punishing authority by passing a speaking order. (b) Provided that this condition shall not apply in a case where an order based on facts, has led to his conviction in a Criminal Court or an order has been passed superseding him for promotion to a higher post on the grounds of his unfitness for that post on account of the existence of unsatisfactory record.' Perusal of the regulation clearly shows that the authorities are competent to consider the reply to the charge sheet for major punishment, however, considering the reply the authorities can straight away issue any of the minor penalties. Having considered the facts, I find that the principle of natural justice has been satisfied in so much as not only the reply filed by the plaintiff to the charge sheet has been considered, but also the appeal filed by the plaintiff was considered and dismissed vide order dated 27.7.2004. Learned counsel appearing for the R.S.A No. 517 of 2007 ::7:: respondent-defendant has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India AIR 2001 Supreme Court 51, Food Corporation of India, Hyderabad and others vs A.Prahalada Rao and Another. I have gone through the judgment. The issue has been considered in para no.5 of the judgment. It has been held that discretion of the department cannot be curtailed by interpretation which is contrary to the language used in the regulation. The scope of judicial review in such matters has also been discussed and the following has been held “it is settled law that Courts' power of judicial review in such cases is limited and Court can interfere where the authority held the enquiry proceedings in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry and imposing punishment or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence or is such that no reasonable person would have ever reached. Having considered the regulation that applies to the facts of the case, I find that the regulation provides for dispensing with the regular enquiry in case any of the minor punishments is to be imposed......” It is to be noticed that in Ram Mehar's case (supra), the decision in Randhir Singh's case (supra) was also considered. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed in the decisions of Ram R.S.A No. 517 of 2007 ::8:: Mehar's case (supra) and Pankaj Bhushan's case (supra). The fact that in another case bearing RSA No.3397 of 2008 filed by the respondents canvassing this very point of view has been admitted would not automatically mean that this appeal should also be admitted. Counsel for the appellant has raised one another point. He asserts that admittedly retiral benefits were delayed and the trial Court had awarded interest @ 9% which has been reduced by the lower appellate Court to 6% without giving any reasons therefor. In my opinion, it would be appropriate if the rate of interest is awarded @ 8% p.a. Ordered accordingly. With this modification, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) July 27, 2009. JUDGE `kk'