IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 509 of 1987 Date of Order: 25.9.2009 State of Punjab ...Appellant Versus Subhash Chand Bansal ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the appellant. None for the respondent. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of RSA Nos. 508 and 509 of 1987, which have been filed by the defendant-State of Punjab under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, ‘the Code’) against the common judgment and decree dated 19.9.1986, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, in Civil Appeal Nos. 178 and 179 of 21.12.1985. Brief facts of the case are that two separate civil suits for declaration and permanent injunction were filed by Sarvshri Gurdev Singh (plaintiff- respondent in RSA No. 508 of 1987) and Subash Chand Bansal (plaintiff- respondent in RSA No. 509 of 1987). Shri Gurdev Singh was Sub Divisional Officer whereas Shri Subash Chand Bansal was Sectional Officer in the Irrigation Branch, Ladda Sub Division, Ladda, at the relevant point of time. They were assigned the work of repair of ramps etc. on Sangrur Distributory. On R.S.A. No. 509 of 1987 31.7.1978, a checking was done and thereafter notices were issued to the plaintiff (s) by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab, proposing to inflict one or more punishments as enumerated in sub-rule (i) to (iv) of Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. The plaintiff(s) filed their reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, vide order dated 19/25.3.1980 following punishments were inflicted upon the plaintiff(s): Gurdev Singh : Stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,489/-. Subash Chand Bansal : Stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,326/-. The aforementioned order was subject matter of challenge in the suits filed by the plaintiff(s). The plaintiff(s) pleaded that the punishment imposed upon them was a major penalty and it amounted to reduction in rank. The punishing authority has not applied his mind and no inquiry was held. The impugned order was not passed by the competent authority. The defendant-State of Punjab contested the suits. The trial Court clubbed both the suits and the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the order dated 25.3.1980 of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Works, Punjab, is illegal, void, unjust, unconstitutional and contrary to fact? If so, its effect? 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? O.P.P. 3. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee? OPD. 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for? O.P.P. 5. Relief.” The learned trial Court returned its finding on Issue No. 1 against the 2 R.S.A. No. 509 of 1987 plaintiff(s). The other issues were not pressed. Accordingly, the suits were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff(s) preferred their appeals before the learned Lower Appellate Court. After appreciating the evidence brought on record and rival contentions of the parties, the learned Lower Appellate Court came to various conclusions, which can be summed up as under:- i) Imposition of two punishments by the punishing authority is illegal; ii) Proper procedure for inflicting the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect has not been followed because proper opportunity was not afforded to the plaintiffs; iii) Inflicting a punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment under Rule 5 of the Rules, therefore, procedure enumerated under Rule 8 of the Rules was required to be followed; iv) If it is assumed that the punishment falls under the category of minor punishment, even then reasons were required to be recorded by the punishing authority for dispensing with holding of inquiry, which has not been done in the present case; v) The impugned order is hit by the principles of natural justice because it would adversely affect the chances of promotion of the plaintiff(s); vi) The punishing authority has not passed speaking order for discarding the reply to the show cause notices given by the plaintiff (s); and On the basis of above conclusions, the learned Lower Appellate Court finally observed that the trial Court has wrongly decided Issue No. 1 and reversed its findings by decreeing the suits of the plaintiff(s). The short question of law which arises for consideration is whether 3 R.S.A. No. 509 of 1987 the impugned punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty and could the same be imposed without holding a regular departmental inquiry. I have heard the learned State counsel and perused the paper book with her able assistance. It is conceded position that the impugned order dated 19/25.3.1980 has been passed without holding a regular departmental inquiry. This Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya, ILR 1983 (2) P&H 123, had taken the view that the penalty contemplated by Rule 5(iv) of the Rules i.e. withholding of increment of pay was a minor penalty and could be confined only to the stoppage of increment without cumulative effect, which could be imposed for good and sufficient reasons. However, the penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect which affects promotion and pension has been considered as a major punishment. Similar view taken by this Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, ILR 1985 (2) P&H 190, was approved by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504 (See para 4). It is evident from the perusal of Rule 5 of the Rules that various penalties given from Sr. Nos. (i) to (iv) and (v) to (ix) could be imposed for good and sufficient reasons. It can be safely concluded that while passing the impugned order of punishment inflicting major penalty proper procedure has not been followed by the punishing authority, which renders the aforementioned order as illegal and the learned Lower Appellate Court has rightly set aside the same. Accordingly, the question of law has to be answered against the appellant State and in favour of the plaintiff-respondent(s). As a sequel to the above discussion, the appeals filed by the appellant State are liable to be dismissed and the view taken by the learned Lower Appellate Court deserves to be upheld. Accordingly, these appeals fail and the same are dismissed. 4 R.S.A. No. 509 of 1987 (M.M. KUMAR) September 25, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 5