In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh R.S.A. No. 1092 of 1987 Date of Decision: October 29, 2009 The Punjab State through Secretary Food and Supplies Department, Government of Punjab, Chandigarh. …Appellant Versus Harminder Singh …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Addl. AG, 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. The defendant State of Punjab has filed the instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, ‘the Code’) challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the order dated 2.3.1982 passed by the Director Food and Supplies stopping two annual grade increments with cumulative effect of the plaintiff-respondent, was illegal. The substantive question of law which arise for determination of this Court is ‘whether stoppage of increments with cumulative RSA No. 1092 of 1987 effect is a major punishment obliging the punishing authority to hold a regular departmental inquiry as contemplated by Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’). 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent who was working in the Food and Supplies department was served with a charge sheet with the allegation that when he was posted as an Inspector, Food and Supplies, Tarn Taran, a super inspection was conducted by District Food and Supplies Controller, Amritsar, on 15.9.1979. It was found that six bags of wheat were sub-standard and the weight of bags was also abnormally less. The plaintiff-respondent denied the allegations by filing a detailed reply. However, the defendant-appellant-State of Punjab without holding any inquiry issued a show cause notice to plaintiff-respondent on 2.4.1981 asking him to explain as to why two of his annual grade increments be not stopped with cumulative effect. The plaintiff-respondent gave a detailed reply disputing that he was not incharge of the godown which was inspected by the District Food and Supplies Controller on 15.9.1979. He explained that as a matter of fact one Jasbir Singh was incharge of that godown. The defendant- appellant did not hold any inquiry but passed an order inflicting punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. 3. The question that arises for determination is whether stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment or it is a minor punishment. According to Rule 5 as it stood at that 2 RSA No. 1092 of 1987 time, stoppage of increment was the punishment provided by clause (iv) of that Rule. In other words it did not provide for ‘with cumulative’ or ‘without cumulative effect’. It would be necessary to read Rule 5 as it stood at that time to substantiate the issue raised. The relevant portion of Rule 5 of the Rules reads thus:- “Rule 5. Penalties. – The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a Government employee, namely:- Minor Penalties (i) Censure; (ii) withholding of his promotions; (iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government by negligence or breach of orders; (iv) withholding of increments of pay; Major Penalties (v) reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the Government employee will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay; (vi) to (ix) xxx xxx xxx” 3 RSA No. 1092 of 1987 4. A perusal of the aforesaid rule shows that stoppage of increment is one of the punishments provided by Rule 5 (iv) of the Rules. However, the reduction to a lower scale is the punishment provided by Rule 5(v) of the Rules. When punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is inflicted then it results in reduction of salary permanently which adversely affects even pension which akin the punishment provided by Rule 5(v) which deals with infliction of a major punishment. The Rule came up for consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504. Therefore, it has to be held that stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment and the same cannot be inflicted without following the procedure laid down by Rule 8 of the Rules. It would be necessary at this stage to notice Rule 8(1) of the Rules, which reads thus: “8. Procedure for imposing major penalties (1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 5 shall be made except after an inquiry held, as far as may be in the manner provided in this rule and Rule 9 or in the manner provided by the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850), where such inquiry is held under that Act.” 5. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule shows that any major punishment could be inflicted only after holding an inquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Rule 8 of the Rules. It 4 RSA No. 1092 of 1987 requires the issuance of charge sheet, obtaining of reply and then holding of inquiry in accordance with various requirements of Rule 8. A detailed procedure unfolding various steps of affording full opportunity to a delinquent employee have been prescribed by the Rule. In the absence of any such inquiry no major punishment like stoppage of increment with cumulative effect could be inflicted. It has to be concluded that in the absence of any regular departmental inquiry as contemplated by Rule 8 of the Rules no major punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect could be inflicted. Therefore, the answer to the substantive question of law posed in the first para of the judgment has to be against the defendant appellant- State of Punjab and in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. 6. There is another aspect of the matter. According to Rule 5 of the Rules, punishment could be imposed for good and sufficient reasons. Issuance of charge sheet on 15.9.1979 for inflicting major punishment and thereafter show cause notice cannot constitute sufficient reason within the meaning of Rule 5 of the Rules. It requires that there has to be some element of admission of the guilt on the part of the delinquent employee even in cases where minor punishment of censure, warning or stoppage of increment without cumulative effect is to be inflicted. Therefore, the plaintiff- respondent cannot be considered to have admitted his guilt once he has disputed the allegation seriously. It is well settled that the employer cannot resort to a short cut by abandoning the inquiry and shy away from proving the guilt by producing cogent evidence. 5 RSA No. 1092 of 1987 Therefore, on that score also the order dated 2.3.1982 cannot be regarded to have given sufficient reasons to conclude that the plaintiff-respondent has committed the misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet. Therefore, the view taken by the Courts below deserves to be upheld. 7. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the State of Punjab fails and it is accordingly dismissed. However, there would be no order to costs as the controversy whether stoppage of increment with cumulative effect was a major penalty or not were pending before Hon’ble the Supreme Court when the instant appeal was filed. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) October 29, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 6