RSA No.1168 of 2008 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1168 of 2008 Date of Decision: 24.01.2011 Superintending Engineer and others ……Appellants Versus Smt. Kanta Rani and others …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Sudhir Kumar the appellants . Mr. Anil Kumar Lambdharia, Advocate for the respondent No.5. None for respondent Nos.1 to 4. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6, having failed in both the Courts below, are in second appeal. Suit was filed by R. D. Dhiman plaintiff (since deceased and represented by respondent Nos.1 to 4 i.e widow, a son and two daughters of the original plaintiff). The plaintiff was employee of the defendants. Chargesheet dated 27.10.1994 was served on the plaintiff R. D. Dhiman, who submitted reply to the same. However, the defendants passed order dated 22.02.1999 thereby stopping two annual increments of the plaintiff without cumulative effect and also ordering recovery of Rs.1,39,000/- from the salary of the plaintiff. Said punishment order has been challenged in RSA No.1168 of 2008 - 2 - the suit and injunction was sought against implementation of the said order and recovery of the amount in question. Defendants No.1 to 4 and 6 contested the suit and pleaded that the impugned order is legal and valid. Embezzlement allegedly committed by the cashier took place while the plaintiff was posted as Sub- Divisional Officer and, therefore, he was also liable for the same. Defendant Nos.5 did not contest the suit and was proceeded ex parte in the trial Court. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 29.09.2003 decreed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 27.09.2007. Feeling aggrieved, defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondent No.5 and perused the case file whereas none is appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Admittedly chargesheet for major penalty was issued to the plaintiff, who submitted reply to the same. However, thereafter without holding regular departmental inquiry, impugned punishment order imposing minor penalty was passed by the competent authority. This factual position is not in dispute. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. K. G. Tewari versus State of Haryana, CWP No.3616 of 1999 decided on 20.01.2001, held that once chargesheet is issued for major penalty, then without holding regular departmental inquiry, disciplinary authority cannot inflict even minor punishment. In the instant case, disciplinary authority inflicted minor punishment on the plaintiff after issuing him chargesheet for major penalty, but no regular departmental inquiry was held. Consequently, in RSA No.1168 of 2008 - 3 - view of authoritative pronouncement of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. K. G. Tewari, the impugned punishment order has been rightly held to be illegal, null and void by the Courts below. There is, therefore, no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgments of the Courts below, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal which is accordingly dismissed. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 24.01.2011 A.kaundal