CWP No.13986 of 2009 Date of decision : 17.1.2011 Vipan Kumar Vs. The State of Punjab and others Present: Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.B.S.Chahal, Sr.DAG, Punjab. * * * Permod Kohli, J. Penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 23.11.2007 (Annexure P-10) by the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab and the period of absence w.e.f. 27.10.1997 to 22.1.2006 has been ordered to be treated as dies-non. An appeal preferred against the said order, also stands rejected by the government vide impugned order dated 11.6.2009 (Annexure P-12). Both these orders are under challenge in this petition. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are noticed hereunder:- While serving as Medical Laboratory Technician at PHC, Narot, Jaimal Singh, District Gurdaspur, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet for remaining absent from duty, loss of government work and violation of orders of the higher authority. An inquiry was initiated against him in pursuance to the charge-sheet. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report (Annexure P-9). The Inquiry officer exonerated the petitioner holding charges not proved. The disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order (Annexure P-10) imposing penalty referred to above. The appellate authority also concurred with the orders of the disciplinary authority. The impugned order has been challenged primarily on the following two grounds:- (1) Copy of Inquiry report was not served upon the petitioner. (2) Disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments disagreeing with the inquiry report without recording any reason and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This fact is not disputed even in the reply. From the impugned order which seems to have been passed in a most casual manner, it appears that CWP No.13986 of 2009 no reasons for disagreeing with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer have been recorded. Admittedly, the inquiry has been held in accordance with the provisions of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970. Rule 9 deals with the action on the inquiry report and the relevant extract reads as under:- “Rule 9. Action on the Inquiry report (1) The punishing authority, if it is not itself the inquiring authority, may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 8 as far as may be. (2) The punishing authority shall, if it disagrees with the finding s of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for each disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient for the purpose.” Sub rule 2 of Rule 9 enjoins upon disciplinary/punishing authority, a duty to record its reason for disagreement on any articles of charges and also to record its own finding where it decides to disagree with the report of the Inquiry officer. In the present case, this mandate of the rule has been totally given go by. The impugned orders thus, are not sustainable in law, having been passed in contravention of the specific provisions contained in rule 9. In view of the above reasons, the impugned orders Annexure P- 10 and Annexure P-12 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order after affording fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with the law. Petition stands disposed of. (Permod Kohli) Judge 17.01.2011 sd 2