RULE 4 OF THE HARYANA CIVIL SERVICES (PUNISHMENT AND APPEAL) RULES, 1987, IS VALID AS IT EMPOWERS THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE PENALTIES ONLY FOR "GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASONS" AND PROVIDES FOR A PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED BEFORE IMPOSING ANY PENALTY.

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.

1. The petitioner, a Patwari, challenges the validity of Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. He alleges that the rule confers a totally unguided and unbridled power on the appropriate authority to award a major or minor penalty without laying down any guideline. Thus, the rule is invalid and the action of the authorities in ordering his removal from service is vitiated. Is it so?

2. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be briefly noticed.

3. The petitioner was recruited as a Patwari in March, 1973. In July, 1983, one Jagjit Singh submitted an application to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil) Panipat, for the grant of a domicile certificate. The petitioner certified that the applicant was residing in Village Waiseri for the last six years and "is holding land in the village". The report was finally put up before the Sub Divisional officer who directed that the certificate be issued. A certificate dated August 9, 1983 was actually issued. Jagjit Singh applied for admission to the B.Ed. Course. The college suspected the genuineness of the domicile certificate. The matter ultimately came to the notice of the collector. On July 30, 1985, the petitioner was charge-sheeted. After a detailed enquiry, the Collector vide his order dated November 19, 1986, awarded the penalty of removal from service to the petitioner. He filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner vide his order dated May 5, 1987. The petitioner submitted a revision petition. The collector withheld the revision petition. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated November 13, 1987 informed the petitioner that his petition had been filed.

4. Aggrieved by the orders passed by different authorities, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No. 1271 of 1988. Unfortunately, this petition remained pending for a period of about nine years. In April, 1997, the petitioner filed a Civil Misc. application No. 6784 of 1997 with a prayer that the writ petition may be ordered to be listed for hearing. This application was listed for hearing before one of us (Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.). With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the main writ petition was taken up for hearing. The action of the Collector in withholding the revision as also of the Financial Commissioner in directing that the petition be filed, were set aside. The Financial Commissioner was directed to decide the revision petition on merits expeditiously. In pursuance of the directions given by the Court on April 7, 1997, the Financial Commissioner dismissed the revision petition vide order dated November 10, 1997. Hence this petition.

5. Mr. Bhoop Singh, counsel for the petitioner has made a two-fold submission. Firstly, learned counsel has contended that Rule 4 which empowers the appropriate authority to impose one of the prescribed penalties is unconstitutional as it confers totally unguided and unbridled powers. Secondly, it has been contended that in the circumstances of the case, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is highly excessive.

6. Even though proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner under the 1952 rules, yet the petitioner has only impugned the provisions of Rule 4 as enacted in the year 1987. This rule empowers the competent authority to impose any of the prescribed penalties for "good and sufficient reasons". Still further, the procedure which has to be followed before awarding any of the penalties has been laid down. It ensures the grant of a reasonable opportunity to the employee before an order imposing a minor or major penalty is passed.

7. On a perusal of the rules, it is clear that the power to impose penalty has been conferred on senior officers. The penalty can be imposed only after following the prescribed procedure. The authority can award a penalty only for good and sufficient reason. The rule, thus, contains sufficient guidelines. It cannot be said that the rule confers tot