RSA No. 2520 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2520 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:- 08.11.2011 Financial Commissioner & Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana and others. ....Appellants Vs. Naresh Kumar ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL ****** Present:- Mr. K.C. Gupta, Senior DAG, Haryana, for the appellants. Mr. Arun Luthra, Advocate, and Mr. Shashank, Advocate, for the respondent. A.N. JINDAL, J (ORAL) Suit of the plaintiff-respondent (hereinafter referred as 'the plaintiff') challenging the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, was dismissed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal vide judgment dated 30.07.2010, whereas, the Additional District Judge, Kaithal, vide judgment dated 09.02.2011, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff, against which, the State has come up in second appeal. The facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the plaintiff was working as a Clerk in Haryana Roadways at Kaithal. One Rajinder Parshad, Diesel Pump Attendant, was placed under suspension by the General Manager, Haryana RSA No. 2520 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Roadways, Kaithal, vide order dated 04.01.1982 and his suspension period beyond six months had become necessary under the circumstances of the case, for which, the case was to be forwarded to the Government before expiry of six months. But, as per allegations in the charge-sheet, the plaintiff failed to deal with the case and did not forward the same to the competent authority for obtaining sanction to maintain the suspension of Rajinder Parshad beyond 04.07.1982. Therefore, on this allegation, he was held to be negligent and charge-sheeted accordingly. Having scrutinized the record, it transpires that the judgment passed by the Appellate Court is correct. The enquiry proceedings were not properly held against the plaintiff. He was not given proper opportunity of hearing. The penalty of stopping two increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty. The first Appellate Court appears to have elaborately discussed the irregularities committed by the appellants. Hence, the findings returned by the first Appellate Court are required to be affirmed. No substantial question of law arises for determination by this Court. Dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) November 08, 2011 JUDGE ajp