Regular Second Appeal No. 2315 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2315 of 1987 Date of decision: 22.04.2010 Maha Singh ...Appellant Versus The Haryana State through Collector, Kurushetra ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jitender Bedwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The appellant who was employed as Driver in Haryana Roadways was proceeded against with the allegation that the bus driven by him on 17.06.1982 over-turned leading to damage to the bus. The appellant was suspended and was served with statement of allegations that he was negligent in discharge of his duty as driver. It was alleged that because of sudden turn, the patta of the bus broke and thus the bus went out of control and turned turtle. The appellant denied the allegation and thereafter inquiry officer was appointed. The inquiry was held but the appellant was suddenly reinstated on 21.09.1982 and was served with the show cause notice asking him to explain as to why he be not punished with the stoppage of annual increment with permanent effect. The appellant submitted his reply. Thereafter order was passed on 24.5.1983 stopping one annual increment of the appellant Regular Second Appeal No. 2315 of 1987 2 with cumulative effect. The appellant accordingly impugned this order on the ground that the procedure contemplated under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 (hereinafter called the rules) was not followed. The appellant would further contend that principles of natural justice were violated by the inquiry officer. It is alleged that the copy of the inquiry report was also not supplied to the respondent-plaintiff alongwith the show cause notice. His further grievance was that the pay scales payable to the petitioner were also restricted to the subsistence allowance without following the principles of natural justice and without issuing any notice to him. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed:- i) Whether the order dated 24.5.1983 is illegal and alleged in para no. 6 of the plaint. If so, its effect?OPP ii) Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD. iii)Relief. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The respondent- plaintiff, therefore, filed an appeal against the same, which was also dismissed on 24.03.1987. The appellant, therefore, has filed this Regular Second Appeal. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the whole approach of the courts below is misconceived as the stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was construed as a minor penalty and the case dealt with accordingly. After placing the appellant under suspension, the inquiry was held against him in terms of Rule 7 of the rules, which provides for procedure for Regular Second Appeal No. 2315 of 1987 3 inflicting major penalty. Further show cause notice was issued for awarding stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect which was taken to be a minor penalty as per the law then prevalent. It was pleaded on behalf of the appellant that though the inquiry was held but the inquiry report was not supplied to the appellant alongwith the show cause noticed issued to him. The plea that after having initiated the process to impose major penalty, the same was required to be followed till completion, was accordingly raised before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court, however, found that though the penalty imposed was minor but the inquiry was held and thereafter this punishment was imposed. The facts accordingly were found to be identical as were before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shadi Lal versus State of Punjab 1973 (1) SLR 913. The First Appellate Court also observed that even if it was assumed that the inquiry report was not supplied alongwith the show cause notice, the punishment cannot be quashed as only minor penalty was imposed which could be awarded without holding even an inquiry. The view that only minor penalty was imposed cannot now be accepted as stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect would be a major penalty. Mr. Nehra would contend that copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the appellant alongwith the show cause notice as was pleaded in the written statement filed. This fact was controverted in the replication. The counsel could not substantiate from the record if the copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the appellant alongwith the show cause notice. Since the First Appellate Court decided the case only on the ground that the punishment imposed Regular Second Appeal No. 2315 of 1987 4 was minor and accordingly the Court did not find any violation of the procedure, It would now have to be seen if non-supply of inquiry report would vitiate the punishment as awarded. Once it is held that punishment imposed is a major penalty, the respondent was bound to supply copy of the inquiry report to the appellant before imposing this penalty. Since there is doubt whether the inquiry report was supplied or not and the State counsel has not been able to clarify this aspect from the record, it is to be assumed that inquiry report was not supplied alongwith the show cause notice. Accordingly, the punishment awarded to the appellant cannot be sustained on this short ground and would require to be set aside. It is so ordered. The question now to be seen is whether the respondents are to be given liberty to continue with further proceedings from the stage where the defect in the procedure is noticed. In view of the law laid down in Managing Director, ECIL Group and others versus B. Karunakar and others (1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases 727, the authorities can be permitted to continue with the proceedings from the stage any defect in the procedure is noticed. Accordingly, the liberty is given to the respondent to continue with the proceedings by supplying the copy of the inquiry report and thereafter to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly disposed of. April 22, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE