-1- Civil Writ Petition No.10006 of 2006. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: January 21, 2008. Harpal Singh ... Petitioner VERSUS Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited through its Managing Director, Panchkula and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Sanjeev Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. The petitioner was Assistant Engineer with the Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited (for short `HVPNL'), formerly known as Haryana State Electricity Board. He has since retired from service. The Workers' Union of HVPNL had given a -2- Civil Writ Petition No.10006 of 2006. notice for token strike on March 14, 1989. At that time, petitioner was posted as Assistant Engineer at Gohana Sub- urban Sub Division. On the allegation that the petitioner, instead of taking any steps to control the situation and to dissuade the workmen from going on strike, had actually instigated and prompted the workmen to go on strike resulting in a large scale absenteeism in his Sub Division, he was removed from service with immediate effect vide order dated April 01, 1989 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner filed appeal against the order (Annexure P-1), which was accepted by the HVPNL vide order dated April 02, 1991 (Annexure P-2) and he was ordered to be taken back on duty with immediate effect. Thereafter, the HVPNL issued order dated October 30, 2003 (Annexure P-3) whereby the intervening period between removal from service and taking back on duty was treated as leave of the kind due. Against the order dated October 30, 2003 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner filed appeal dated December 29, 2003 (Annexure P-4) before the Director Technical of the HVPNL. When the appeal was not decided in spite of the representations dated August 25, 2004 and April 12, 2005 (both at Annexure P-5), made by the petitioner, he submitted review appeal dated September 20, 2005 (Annexure P-6). The said review appeal was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated January 24, 2006 (Annexure P-7). In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the -3- Civil Writ Petition No.10006 of 2006. Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated January 24, 2006 (Annexure P-7) whereby the request of the petitioner for treating the period of service from April 11,1989 to April 02, 1991 (intervening between removal from service and taking back on duty) as on duty period was rejected. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, the order dated January 24, 2006, has been sought to be justified on the ground that the petitioner was not exonerated from the charge of instigating and prompting the workers to go on strike when decision was taken to take him back on duty and that case of the petitioner was not covered under the instructions dated August 07, 1990 (Annexure R-3). As the order dated April 01, 1989 (Annexure P-1), imposing major penalty of removal from service was passed against the petitioner without affording any opportunity of being heard and even by dispensing with the established procedure of issuing show cause notice/charge sheet, taking reply from the delinquent officer and holding a regular departmental inquiry, the HVPNL rightly accepted the appeal of the petitioner against this order and ordered his reinstatement into service with immediate effect vide order dated April 02,1991 (Annexure P-2). However, by issuing the order dated October 30, 2003 (Annexure4 P-3), the intervening period between removal from service and taking back into service was treated as leave of the kind due. While passing the impugned -4- Civil Writ Petition No.10006 of 2006. order dismissing the review appeal of the petitioner against the order dated October 30, 2003 (Annexure P-3), the competent authority did not furnish any valid reason except mentioning that the case of the petitioner was not covered under the instructions dated August 07, 1990 (Annexure R-3) and that he was not exonerated from the charge of prompting the workers to go on strike when decision was taken to take him back on duty. If the order removing the petitioner from service was not legally sustainable as the same had been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer its consequences. It cannot be said that while ordering reinstatement of the petitioner, he was not exonerated from the charge of instigating the employees to participate in the strike because it could only be ascertained after holding a departmental inquiry and recording evidence as to whether the petitioner had spread indiscipline amongst the employees of the HVPNL or not. The same having not been done, we do not find any reason to uphold the action of the respondent-Department right from issuing order dated October 30, 2003 (Annexure P-3) to the passing of the impugned order dated January 24, 2006 (Annexure P-7). We have perused the instructions dated August 07, 1990 (Annexure R-1), relied upon by the respondent-Department. These instructions do not cover the case where major penalty of removal from service was awarded without issuing any show cause notice/ charge sheet and the period intervening -5- Civil Writ Petition No.10006 of 2006. removal from service and reinstatement into service was about one year and eleven months, as in the present case. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated January 24, 2006 (Annexure P-7) is quashed. It is ordered that the intervening period between removal from service of the petitioner and taking him back on duty i.e from April 11, 1989 to April 02, 1991 shall be deemed to be as on duty period for all intents and purposes. There shall be no order as to costs. ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ( MOHINDER PAL ) JUDGE JUDGE January 21, 2008. ak