C.R. No.3728 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.3728 of 1986 Date of Decision: 30.1.2008 General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar .....Petitioner Vs. Jagdish Lal, and another ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Piyush Kant Jain, Addl.A.G. Punjab. Mr.R.S. Walia, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Advocate for respondent no.2. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this revision filed by the State of Punjab is, to an order dated 15.1.1986 passed by the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') setting aside the order of punishment, imposed under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules'), as also the order dated 26.5.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge,Jalandhar, upholding the aforementioned order. A bare perusal of the impugned orders, leaves no manner of doubt that the orders passed by the authority under the Act, as also the Appellate Authority are without jurisdiction. Authorities under the Act, have no jurisdiction to comment upon, consider and then proceed to set aside orders of punishment passed under the Rules. The aforementioned conclusion is supported by judgements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in C.R. No.3728 of 1986 2 State of Punjab V. Baldev Singh, Conductor, 1999(1) SCT 536, as also in State of Punjab V. Dildar Singh, 2007(1) SCT 202. However, it is not denied that the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was imposed without the conduct of an enquiry. Stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment and, therefore, cannot be imposed without conduct of a regular departmental enquiry, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill V. State of Punjab, 1991 Suppl(1) SCC 504. The order of punishment is, therefore, without jurisdiction and this Court can and in fact, must in the discharge of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, rectify any errors of jurisdiction that are apparent in proceedings pending before it. For the above observations, reference may be made to the judgements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Roshan Deen V. Preeti Lal, 2002(2) SCT 106 and Surya Dev Rai V. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, as also by this Court in State of Punjab V. Dildar Singh (supra). The purpose of Article 227 of the Constitution is to advance the course of justice and not to thwart it. Consequently, while upholding the submissions advanced by counsel for the State of Punjab that the authority constituted under the Act, had no jurisdiction, to set aside orders passed by the Punishing Authority but as the order of punishment is not sustainable in the eyes of law, it is set aside in the exercise and supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of what has been stated herein above, the net result remains the same. The orders dated 15.1.1986 and 26.5.1986 passed by the authority under the Act and the Appellate Authority are set aside, as is the C.R. No.3728 of 1986 3 order of punishment imposed upon the respondent. The present petition stands disposed of in the aforementioned terms. 30.1.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE