IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.967 of 1988 Date of Decision: September 05, 2011 State of Punjab and another Appellants Versus Balraj Singh Respondent RSA No.996 of 1988 Balraj Singh Appellant Versus State of Punjab Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present:- Mr.Ranvir S.Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab Mr.D.R.Mahajan, Advocate for Balraj Singh. ---- Mohinder Pal, J. This judgment shall dispose of above said two Regular Second Appeals, which arisen out of one and the same judgment passed by Ld. Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dated 01.10.1987, vide which the judgment of the learned trial Court was upheld. The plaintiff Balraj Singh filed a decalatory suit challenging the orders imposing penalty of stoppage of increments and other penalties passed from time to time are illegal in contravention of the provisions of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as Service Rules). The claim of the plaintiff in nutshell, was that he was working as conductor in the Punjab RSA Nos.967 and 996 of 1988 -2- Roadways Depot, Patti on 17.11.1975. He was not given annual increments. He approached the office but he did not gave any response. In December 1984, his one increment was stopped with cumulative effect. During those proceedings, the plaintiff also came to know that his various increments had been stopped at his back by passing some penal orders. The plaintiff claims that the orders were never communicated to him and as such are illegal and the same be set aside. The defendant State of Punjab contested the suit on various grounds and pleaded that increments of the plaintiff were stopped by specific order. All the orders passed by the authorities after adopting procedures prescribed under the Service Rules are valid and legal one and the same were communicated to the plaintiff. The learned trial Court after framing number of issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, recording evidence and appreciating the rival contentions putforth by both the parties, partly decreed the suit the plaintiff holding that the orders dated 15.09.1978, 13.11.1978. 10.01.1979, 14.01.1980 and 13.05.1983 are not speaking orders and the same were never communicated to the plaintiff and as such these were set aside. At the same time, the learned trial Court also held that certain orders were passed after due procedure and are legal one and the same were affirmed. Both the parties feeling aggrieved with the decision of the learned trial Court filed separate appeals before First Appellate Court. Vide judgment dated 1.10.1987, the First Appellate Court upheld the judgment of the trial Court by affirming the findings of the learned trial Court. Both the parties again dissatisfied with the decision of the First RSA Nos.967 and 996 of 1988 -3- Appellate Court filed separate Regular Second Appeals, which are not meant for disposal. I have heard Mr.D.R.Mahajan, Advocate for plaintiff Balraj Singh, Mr.Ranvir S.Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the record very carefully. Learned counsel for the plaintiff Balraj Singh has submitted that plaintiff Balraj Singh was not afforded a fair and proper opportunity to defend him during enquiry proceedings, which led to the passing of orders dated 02.04.1980 and 14.12.1983 and the same be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff be decreed in toto as prayed for. On the other hand, State of Punjab has submitted that learned trial Court has erred in deciding issues no.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff, so far as the orders dated 15.09.1978, 13.11.1978. 10.01.1979, 14.01.1980 and 13.05.1983 have been passed at the back of the plaintiff and were not communicated to the plaintiff. It has been duly proved that these orders have been passed after adopting due procedure in the presence of the plaintiff and the same were communicated has prayed that the judgment of the learned trial Court be set aside and suit of the plaintiff be dismissed in toto. After considering the submissions made by both the parties, I find that both the appeals are liable to be dismissed as the judgment of the trial Court is based on well reasoned grounds and there is no illegality, which require any interference by this Court. The short question, which requires to be determined in these appeals is that, whether, the stoppage of increments with cumulative effect comes under the ambit of minor penalty or major penalty. Chapter 10 of the service rules deals with regard to withholding of increment of RSA Nos.967 and 996 of 1988 -4- pay with cumulative effect. The relevant extract of this chapter is as under:- 1. The procedure as laid down for major punishment is to be adopted in the following cases of stoppage of annual increments: (a) If there is possibility of having adverse affect on the amount of punishment in the event of stoppage of increments. (b) If there is proposal for stoppage of increments for more than three years. (c) If there is proposal for stoppage of increment with cumulative effect. It is evidently clear that the orders of punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and could not be passed without holding a regular departmental enquiry for imposing major penalty as envisaged under Service Rules. It is not disputed that no regular enquiry was held before the orders were passed by the authorities in this case. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that the orders dated 15.09.1978, 13.11.1978. 10.01.1979, 14.01.1980 and 13.05.1983 were not communicated to the plaintiff and the same were rightly set aside. Learned State counsel has failed to point out what has been left out of consideration by the learned trial Court while setting aside the aforesaid orders passed by the authorities. In these circumstances, the judgment and decree of the trial Court are upheld. Learned First Appellate Court has rightly dismissed the appeals preferred by both the parties. No interference in these regular appeals preferred by both the parties is warranted in any circumstance and resultantly both the appeals are dismissed. RSA Nos.967 and 996 of 1988 -5- Registry is directed to place a copy of this order on the connected case. (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE September 05, 2011 p.singh