Civil Writ Petition No. 7831 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 7831 of 1989 Date of decision: 30.10.2009 Jagdish Chander ...petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner was working as a Conductor and was posted at Ambala Cantt. when he filed this writ petition in the year 1989. The petitioner had sought writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the increments to the petitioner from the date of his appointment or any other direction that may be considered appropriate. The petitioner claims to have worked to the entire satisfaction of the respondents after having been appointed on 2.11.1976. Without mentioning any details of stoppage of any increment or without placing any order on record in this regard, a sketchy petition was filed which is bereft of any details. Averment in paragraphs 6 and 8 are referred to by the counsel when he is apprised about the petition being lacking in all details and material particulars. It is urged that the increment could be stopped by way of penalty for which a show cause notice is essential. Such increment can be stopped after holding an enquiry if it is major Civil Writ Petition No. 7831 of 1989 2 penalty or after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard if it is minor one. It is further pleaded in para 8 that the petitioner was never served any charge sheet or show cause notice and it is stated that no enquiry whatsoever was held against the petitioner. There is no mention made to any order, whereby increment was stopped. There is no mention even of the punishment, which is awarded. There is no challenge to those orders. The claim made in the writ petition is to grant increment. In the writ petition, there is no ground made to challenge any order whereby increment of the petitioner was stopped. While filling reply to the petition, the respondents have disclosed that the increment of the petitioner was stopped number of times as he was accused of committing embezzlement. The orders have been attached with the reply. The allegation made by the petitioner that the order to stop the increment of the petitioner was without following any procedure, has been denied being wrong and incorrect. It is then stated that the increment were stopped through different orders, some of which were with cumulative effect. It is stated that wherever the stoppage of increment as a minor penalty was imposed, no departmental inquiry was required to be held and accordingly was not held. It is further positively averred that the petitioner was served a show cause notice and after obtaining his reply in each case, the minor punishment of stoppage of increment was imposed by taking into consideration the reply so filed. While explaining the award of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, it is stated that the petitioner was served with the charge sheet, departmental inquiry was held and after complying with the Civil Writ Petition No. 7831 of 1989 3 due procedure, order dated 2.5.1981 (R-17) was passed. It is again reiterated in para 8 of the reply that the petitioner was issued charge sheet and departmental inquiry was held. Show cause notice in each case leading to punishment of R1 to R-16 was issued and then the petitioner was awarded minor penalty. Though these facts were clearly disclosed and so also the award of punishment which was after following the due process, the petitioner never took any action to amend the writ petition or to raise the challenge to the orders of punishment. By referring to rejoinder, the counsel would draw my attention to the prayer made, where it is stated that Anenxures R-1 to R-16, which are annexed with the written statement be also quashed. There is no basis laid for quashing these orders, especially so, when the reply itself has disclosed that these punishments were awarded to the petitioner after following due process. There is another aspect of the matter, which may have to be kept in view. This writ petition was filed in the year 1989. Majority of the orders are passed in the years 1977 and 1978. There was thus long delay in filing writ petition when filed in 1989. In fact the petitioner had made an attempt to mislead this Court. If the show cause notices were issued to him, which fact has now been disclosed and thereafter the order stopping his increment was passed, then he was required to disclose this. To get relief the petitioner was required to challenge these orders and could not rely upon setting aside of these orders by making a simple prayer in the rejoinder. Neither the case is properly pleaded nor proper pleading or pleas have raised, which would need any reply or require any Civil Writ Petition No. 7831 of 1989 4 consideration. The objections raised in the reply that the writ petition suffers from delay and latches is not without substance. There is no basis in the writ petition to consider the challenge raised by the petitioner. His averment that the proceedings were held without following any procedure has been found to be falsely made. In this background, reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in the cases of Secretary to Govt., Punjab, Transport Department, Chandigarh and others versus Amar Nath and another 2008 (4) RSJ 284, Yog Raj Mittal versus State of Punjab and others 2008 (3) RSJ 9 and Shyam Sunder Sharma versus State of Haryana 2001 (3) RSJ 371, would not require consideration, which are only to the effect that for major penalty, the procedure is required to be followed. There is no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. October 30, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE