IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 4774 of 1992 Date of decision: 26.09.2011 Lajpat Rai ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Radhye Sham Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner was serving as Assistant of the office of Dean College of Veterinary Sciences, Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar. While being posted as Accountant-II, the office of Director Farms, Haryana, the petitioner made entries in the service book of Sh. I.K. Sharma, Clerk on 20.09.1975 regarding the crossing of the efficiency bar and raising his pay from `145/- to `152/-. The petitioner claims to have made an entry on the basis of order passed by the Director Farms. This was authenticated by the Drawing the Disbursing Officer and the entries were verified by the Audit also. Later Sh. I.K. Sharma was charge sheeted and inquiry was instituted against him regarding this entry, which was alleged to be fake entry. The petitioner was called as witness in his enquiry. When the statement of the petitioner was recorded, he was posted as Assistant in the Department of Agricultural Economics. The petitioner appeared only as a witness and no inquiry was held against him. Still, the Registrar served a memorandum on 02.06.1984 directing him to Civil Writ Petition No. 4774 of 1992 -2- explain his position regarding the entries made in the service book of Sh. I.K. Sharma. In reply, the petitioner had submitted that this entry was made 9 years ago and he did not remember the exact dates. The petitioner also stated that the entry was made on the basis of an order passed by the competent authority. These orders were maintained by the Clerk and were not available on record. As per the petitioner, for that he could not be held liable. Considering the explanation given by the petitioner, the Vice Chancellor served a show cause notice on 21.06.1985 as to why he should not be removed from service. The petitioner submitted his reply claiming that he was not at fault in making these entries. The petitioner, however, was communicated an order dated 19.01.1989 directing stoppage of next two annual increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner represented before the Vice Chancellor to reconsider the decision. The representation of the petitioner was rejected and communicated to him on 18.10.1991. The petitioner has pleaded that neither inquiry was held nor he was associated in the inquiry in any manner when impugned penalty was imposed. The petitioner was not given opportunity to defend himself before the inquiry officer. The inquiry held in this case was against Sh. I.K. Sharma and the order was passed without supplying him copy of this inquiry report even. The petitioner has, accordingly, filed this writ petition and has placed reliance on the case of Kulwant Singh Gill versus State Civil Writ Petition No. 4774 of 1992 -3- of Punjab 1990 (6) SLR 73 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that stoppage of future increment with cumulative effect amounts to major penalty and no person can be punished without holding any inquiry against him. Pleading that, punishment imposed on the petitioner would be a major penalty, he seeks quashing of the same on account of violation of the procedure. In the written statement filed, the respondents would defend the case and would say as per the statute governing the condition of service, such a punishment could be imposed after issuing a notice to the concerned employee and, thus, the punishment was imposed in accordance with the procedure as prescribed in the regulations. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh's case (supra), the plea raised by the respondents may not have much force. Once the stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is held to be a major penalty, the respondents cannot escape the requirement of holding enquiry to impose this major punishment. Since the petitioner apparently would have retired by now and to do substantial justice between the parties, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is ordered to be commuted to stoppage of increment without cumulative effect. For that, there was no need to hold an inquiry and such penalty could be imposed without holding this inquiry. The writ petition is, accordingly, partially allowed to above extent. The necessary consequences shall follow. September 26, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE