Civil Writ Petition No.6056 of 1990 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6056 of 1990 Date of Decision: October 28, 2010 Mir Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL Present: Mr. I.D. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukhwinder Singh Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana. M. JEYAPAUL, J. The petitioner was serving as a conductor in the Haryana Roadways. One Mr. Chet Ram was the driver of the bus bearing vehicle No.1871. Both were charge-sheeted for plying the said bus 9 hours in advance to the scheduled time. The petitioner was suspended vide order dated 16.04.1985 and was reinstated in service pending inquiry vide order dated 17.05.1985. The grievance of the petitioner is that after he was tranferred from Rewari to Sirsa, the third respondent General Manger, Haryana Roadways, Sirsa passed the impugned order stopping one increment with cumulative effect. It is contended by the petitioner that no show-cause-notice was issued nor was any enquiry conducted against the petitioner. In other words, no opportunity was given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed stopping one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner chose to prefer an appeal aggrieved by the order passed by the third Civil Writ Petition No.6056 of 1990 2 respondent before the second respondent and the same was rejected on the ground that it was a time barred. Aggrieved by the rejection of the appeal by the second respondent, confirming the order passed by the third respondent stopping one increment with cumulative effect, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 would submit that the third respondent has no authority to award any major punishment without holding appropriate enquiry as contemplated under Rule 7 of the said Rules. It is submitted that the petitioner was punsihed by the third respondent virtually without offering any opportunity to put forward his counter case. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 submits that the third respondent is competent to pass such an impugned order as the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is only a minor penalty. It is his submission that the order was passed by the third respondent only in accordance with Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987. The fact finds that the petitioner who was charge-sheeted did not face any enquiry at the hands of the third respondent. The question that arose for consideration before me is whether the third respondent was competent to award such punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect without conducting any enquiry. To test the competency of the third respondent, it is quite relevant to refer to Haryana Civil Services(Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987. The various category of Civil Writ Petition No.6056 of 1990 3 minor penalties major penalties have been catalogued under Rule 4 of the said Rules. This is a case where the petitioner was awarded with stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. As per Rule 4 of the said Rules, a mere warning, a simple censure with , holding of promotion, recovery of last pay of the delinquent employee and withholding of increments of pay without cumulative effect have been described under the minor penalties. But stoppage of increments of pay with cumulative effect has been clearly described as a major penalty under the aforesaid rule. When major penalty is contemplated for certain charges, Rule 7 of the said rules contemplates a thorough enquiry, after recording the dissatisfaction with regard to the explanation of the delinquent employee with respect the certain charges levelled against him. But quite unfortunately, in the instant case, the third respondent chose not to conduct any enquiry. Very strangely the third respondent has come out with the stand that no one enquiry need be conducted if such punishment is likely to be awaded under certain set of charges. The aforesaid stand of third the respondent is against the letter and spirit of Rule 4 readwith Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services(Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987. It is to be noted that withholding of one increment with cumulative effect has been clearly classified as major penalty. Quite Quite against the spirit of the aforesaid rules, it appears that the third respondent without giving sufficient opportunities to the petitioner simply awarded the major penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. As rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, the third respondent has not only violated Rule 4 readwith Rule 7 of the said rules but also failed to adhere to the basic tenets of the principles of natural justice. Civil Writ Petition No.6056 of 1990 4 In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the third respondent and confirmed by the second respondent does not stand legal scrutiny. Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the third and second respondent stand quashed and the respondents are hereby commanded to restore back the increment withheld with cumulative effect without enquiry. The third respondent also shall release the arrears of increment which was stopped pursuant to the impugned order passed by him. It is made clear that the petitioner is also entitled to all the consequential benefits. With the above directions the writ petition stands allowed. No cost. October 28, 2010 (M. JEYAPAUL) D. Bansal JUDGE