IMPORTANT POINT
Even if a major penalty has been proposed, on getting the reply from the delinquent, if the competent authority feels that no major penalty proceeding need be initiated, it can always switch over to initiate proceeding for inflicting minor penalties.

Judgment :-

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether once a charge-sheet has been issued for imposition of a major penalty under Regulation 7 of the Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1990 [for short “the Regulations 1990”], is it obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a full fledged departmental inquiry even if, after considering the reply of the delinquent, the authority decides to impose a minor penalty, for which no departmental inquiry is provided under the Regulations.

3. The respondent herein who was working as an Assistant Law Officer, was served with a charge-sheet on 14.8.1992 alleging that he had exceeded his power by directing implementation of an arbitration award dated 10.9.1991 without getting approval of the superior Authorities. Respondent filed three replies to the charge-sheet and the replies submitted by the respondent were considered by the Board and it was decided to impose only a minor penalty vide its order dated 4.7.1994, the operative portion of which reads as follows:

“HARYANA STATE ELECY. BOARD

OFFICE ORDER NO. 144/COMF-2407 DATED 4.7.94

Having considered the reply submitted by Sh. Y.S. Gulia, A.L.O. through his letters dated 20.1.93, 24.1.94 & dated 27.4.94 to the charge sheet served upon him vide this office Memo No. Ch-4/Conf-2497 (IB-2(1010) dt. 14.8.92 in light of the comments given by L.B., BSEB, Punchkula through his note dated 6.6.94 and record/material available with this office, it has been decided to stop his one increment without future effect as Sh. Y.S. Gulia, ALO has been found responsible for not seeking the approval of L.R., HSEB, Panchkula before conveying the advice to Xen(OP) Divn., HSEB, Gurgaon to implement the award dt. 30.9.91 amount to Rs.26 lacs of the Arbitrator given in M/s. Kegg Farm.

As such one increment of Sh. Y.S. Gulia, Asstt. Law is hereby stopped without future effect.

This issues with the approval of MA&PF, HSEB, Panchkula.”

4. Respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority of the Board. The same was, however, rejected by the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 22.5.1995.

5. Respondent, after a lapse of 10 years, filed a Civil Suit No. 157 of 2005 before the Civil Judge (JD), Gurgaon for a declaration that the order dated 4.7.1994 and the Appellate Authority’s order dated 22.5.1995 were illegal and void and also for mandatory injunction directing the Board to refund the amount of one increment deducted from his salary with 18% interest. The Civil Judge dismissed the suit vide his judgment dated 29.1.2009.

6. Aggrieved by the same, respondent preferred an appeal being C.A. No. 34 of 2009 before the District Judge, Gurgaon. It was contended before the learned District Judge that the Board had committed a gross illegality in not holding a regular departmental inquiry after having initiated major penalty proceeding under Regulation 7 of the Regulations 1990. This argument was accepted by the learned District Judge holding that having invoked Regulation 7, the Board should have conducted a regular departmental inquiry and inflicting minor punishment without holding a regular departmental inquiry was illegal. Holding so, the order passed by the Civil Judge was set aside and the suit was decreed.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the Board preferred R.S.A. No. 3094 of 2011 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The appeal was dismissed holding that no substantial question of law arose for its consideration. Further, it was also held that the Board was bound to hold a regular departmental inquiry and minor punishment could not have been imposed merely considering the reply submitted by the respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been preferred.

8. Shri Narender Hooda, Additional Advocate General appearing for the Board, submitted that the High Court has not properly appreciated the scope of Regulations 1990. Shri Hooda