RSA No.4225 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 4225 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 12.01.2011 Punjab State Electricity Board .....Appellant Versus Jasvinder Pal Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Jasbir Singh, Advocate, for the appellant **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff joined Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as `PSEB') as Internal Auditor on 01.08.1985. Plaintiff was promoted as Revenue Accountant with effect from 04.8.1988. Plaintiff was placed under suspension with effect from 06.09.2002 and was reinstated in service on 12.11.2002. Vide order dated 2.8.2004, penalty of reversion was imposed on the plaintiff by the Chief Accounts Officer. Vide order dated 25.4.2005, the period of suspension of plaintiff from 6.9.2002 to 19.11.2002 was ordered to be treated as non-duty period. Appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed vide order dated 28.10.2005. Plaintiff challenged the RSA No.4225 of 2010 (O&M) 2 order of imposition of penalty on the ground that it would have an effect of major penalty. No departmental inquiry was held against the plaintiff in accordance with rules before the passing of the impugned order. Hence, suit for declaration and Mandatory injunction was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants in their written statement admitted the factum of appointment of the plaintiff as Internal Auditor on 1.8.1985 and his promotion to the post of the Revenue Accountant on 4.8.1988. The passing of the impugned order was also admitted in the written statement. It was further averred that the competent authority had passed the impugned order in accordance with law. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- "1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether present suit is not maintainable in the present? 4.Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit?OPD 5.Relief" Vide judgment and decree dated 23.09.2009, the trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, plaintiff preferred an appeal. The said appeal was allowed by the Additional District Judge Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 7.5.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. RSA No.4225 of 2010 (O&M) 3 After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that instant appeal deserves dismissal. Admittedly, plaintiff was issued charge-sheet on 11.11.2002 qua imposition of major penalty. Plaintiff submitted his reply to the said chargesheet denying charges levelled against him. Thereafter, without holding any inquiry, the punishment of censure was imposed on the plaintiff. The full Bench of this Court in Dr.K.G.Tiwari vs. State of Haryana 2002(3)RSJ 296, while considering this aspect has held as under:- "23. If the charge-sheeted employee is informed that the charge-sheeted is issued under Rule 8, then the charge- sheeted employee will know that he will have only one opportunity to put forth his defence in writing to show that not only he is not guilty, but also that a particular type of punishment, especially like the one ordering recovery, should not be imposed. But if the chargesheet is issued under Rule 7, and if the entire procedure prescribed in rule 7 is fully complied with by holding a complete enquiry, thereafter, it will be open to the Disciplinary Authority to impose a major or minor punishment as may be called for. But, to suddenly drop the enquiry contemplated under Rule 7, after getting the explanation, and then to impose a minor punishment as per Rule 8, will cause prejudice to the chargesheeted employee and deprive him of putting forward his case. The opportunity of main representation as provided for in Rule 8 contemplates a reasonable RSA No.4225 of 2010 (O&M) 4 opportunity to put forth his entire defence which, the chargesheeted employee would put forth, in case he is put on notice that the procedure under the Rule 8 only will be followed. This opportunity he will not get if the chargesheet is issued under the Rule 7 and after considering his explanation, a minor penalty is imposed as per Rule 8. This is the serious prejudice that will be caused to the chargesheeted employee when such a change of procedure is adopted. 28. We hold that once the chargesheet is issued under Rule 7 of the rules 1987 for the imposition of a major penalty, which envisages holding of a regular departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority cannot by merely examining the reply to the chargesheet inflict even a minor punishment without holding a complete departmental enquiry." In this view of the matter, the learned Additional District Judge has rightly allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal warranting interference by this Court. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge January 12, 2011 arya