Judgment

ALAGIRISWAMI, J. :- This appeal is by way of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissing the Second Appeal filed by the appellant. He was a clerk in the Treasury at Ludhiana. He filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for three different reliefs out of which the only one that now survives is regarding the order withholding his increment for one year with cumulative effect.

2. The sole point raised on behalf of the appellant before the High Court was overruled by it on the basis of the Full Bench decision of the High Court in Malvinderjit Singh v. State of Punjab, ILR (1970) 2 Punj 580 (FB) which overruled the decision in Kalyan Singh v. The State of Punjab, ILR (1967) 2 Punj 471.

3. This is perhaps the first case that comes to this Court in the matter of a minor punishment. The appellant relied upon the decision of this Court in B. D. Gupta v. State of Haryana, AIR 1972 SC 2472, the facts of which are rather complicated, and are unnecessary for the purpose of this case. One of the points that arose in that case was regarding the minor punishment of censure, though it was an incidental one in an appeal which involved a much more important question. It was held that the show cause notice in that case did not give the appellant (the aggrieved Government servant) any real opportunity to defend himself. That is not the case here.

4. The charge-sheet served on the appellant on 10-11-61 was to the following effect :

"(i) That you have been careless and negligent in the performance of your duties at Sub-Treasury, Sirhind, as per concrete instances mentioned in the enclosed statement of allegations.

(ii) That you have been disobedient to the Assistant Treasury Officer, Sirhind."

and an elaborate statement of allegations was enclosed alongwith the charge-sheet, which is set out below :

STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS

"While Shri Shadi Lal Gupta, Clerk, Sangrur Treasury, was working as Routine Clerk, Sirhind Sub-Treasury, he had been disobedient to the Assistant Treasury Officer, Sirhind and negligent in the discharge of his duties, and a few instances of his carelessness, negligence and disobedience are given below :

1. Shri Shadi Lal Gupta was allotted the work of passing Deposit Repayment Orders issued by the Courts and it was found vide some instances quoted below that he calculated wrong balances in the Deposit Receipt Registers which were likely to cause overpayment in certain cases and refusal to make payment in other cases at some later stage.

a) While passing DRO No. 17, dated 15th November, 1960 on 18-11-1960 the balance was calculated by him as Rs. 327.60 instead of Rupees 317.60 N. P.

b) While passing DRO 15 dated 10-11-1960 on 25th November, 1960, the balance was calculated by him as Rs. 56.44 N. P. instead of Rs. 56.33 N. P.

c) In the said DRO 15 dated 10-11-1960 passed on 25-11-1960 the amount to be paid was entered by him as Rs. 74/- only instead of Rs. 74.11 N. P.

d) While passing payment of Rs. 131.06 N. P. in respect of DRO 17 dated 15-11-1960 on 18-11-1960 the balance in the deposit receipt Register was calculated by him as Rs. 595.23 N. P. instead of Rs. 495.23 N.P.

e) In passing payment of Rs. 28.71 N. P. relating to DRO 23 dated 5-12-1960 on 7-12-1960 the balance was worked out by him as Rs. 261.71 N. P. instead of Rs. 281.71 N.P.

f) The passing payment of Rupees 1562.70 N.P. in respect of DRO 124 dated 8-11-1960 repaid on 9-11-1960 the actual payment was shown as Rs. 1600/- in the deposit receipt register.

2. He passed cheque No. 335553 dated 13-11-1960 on 15-11-1960 without verifying the particulars of the cheque in question as the cross entry of the cheque was wrong and he did not point it out. Similarly cheque No. 395202, dated 21-11-1960 for Rs. 126/- was passed on 24-11-60 by him without verifying the identifier of the payee, as neither he asked him to produce his half of the P.P.O. quoted by him in his identification nor did he confirm the fact from the Sub-Treasury record.

3. Inward letter Nos. 419 and 420 were r