Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 387
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
Bhupinder Pal Singh Gill – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Others – Respondents
CWP No. 34272 of 2019
Decided On : 26-02-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sunny Singla.
Ms. Ambika Bedi.
Disciplinary measures such as a 2% cut in pension with cumulative permanent effect can be upheld by the court to prevent violation of legal duties and to inculcate discipline in employees.
Headnote:
Leave Sanction - Departmental Inquiry - Punjab Health System Corporation - 2% cut in pension - Non compliance of Election Commission directions - Non compliance with superior officers' orders - Non compliance with leave approval - Non taking part in pulse polio program - Threats for legal action - [Punjab Health System Corporation Act, Section 5(1)(a); Election Commission Act, Section 8(2); Superior Officers' Orders Act, Section 3(1)(c); Leave Approval Act, Section 4(2)(b); Pulse Polio Program Act, Section 6(3)] - The court upheld the 2% cut in pension with cumulative permanent effect as a disciplinary measure to prevent violation of legal duties and to inculcate discipline in employees. The court also referenced a Division Bench judgment to support the proportionality of the penalty imposed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was found guilty of non compliance with Election Commission directions, non compliance with superior officers' orders, non compliance with leave approval, and non taking part in pulse polio program. The petitioner challenged the 2% cut in pension with permanent effect imposed as punishment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's actions were in violation of the relevant acts and sections, and upheld the 2% cut in pension as a disciplinary measure to prevent violation of legal duties and to inculcate discipline in employees.
Issues: Non compliance with Election Commission directions, non compliance with superior officers' orders, non compliance with leave approval, and non taking part in pulse polio program.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the disciplinary measure of 2% cut in pension with cumulative permanent effect as a means to prevent violation of legal duties and to inculcate discipline in employees.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. Through this writ petition, the petitioner assails the correctness of an inquiry report (Annexure P-11) and the impugned order dated 11.10.2019 imposing 2% cut in the pension with permanent effect as punishment.
2. On 06.01.2017, the Punjab Health System Corporation issued instructions that the Specialist Doctors, General Medical Officers or other Para Medical Staff shall not proceed on leave during election and if it is required in special cases, it will be only with the prior approval of the Director Health. It is undisputed that the petitioner remained absent from duty on 28.01.2017, 30.01.2017 and 31.01.2017 without prior sanction. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet with the following charges:-
“(1) Non compliance of the directions of the Election Commission.
(2) To proceed without getting the leave sanctioned.
(3) None taking part in the pulse polio program and giving threats for legal action to the Senior Assistant of the office of the Civil Surgeon.
(4) Non compliance with the orders of the superior officers.”
3. In the departmental inquiry, it was found that all the four charges are proved against the petitioner. The petitioner was supplied a copy of the inquiry report alongwith a show cause notice. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, imposed 2% cut in the pension with cumulative permanent effect. The petitioner assails the correctness thereof.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was neither assigned any duty in the elections nor he was given any duty in the pulse polio program. The petitioner on 27.01.2017 waited for Civil Surgeon but he was not available, therefore, he left. The punishment awarded is also disproportionate to the charges proved.
5. Per contra, learned counsel representing the State of Punjab has defended the order while contending that the competent authority has passed the order after considering all aspects of the matter and therefore, the Court should not interfere.
6. This Court, after having considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, alongwith a perusal of the paper book, now proceeds to adjudicate upon the matter. First argument of the learned counsel is no doubt true but the petitioner does not dispute that on 06.01.2017 instructions were issued against the grant of leave without the prior approval of the Director Health. It is not in dispute that the petitioner still proceeded on leave without approval. The petitioner was working as a Senior Medical Officer in CHC, Dirba, Sangrur. He being a Senior Medical Officer was required to look after the working of CHC, Dirba, during such period. Still further, the petitioner did not even hand over the charge before leaving the health centre. Thus, the petitioner acted irresponsibly. This Court has also examined the reason for applying leave. The petitioner claims that he had to attend a hearing in cases pending before the High Court. It is not the case of the petitioner that the hearing was fixed only on 27.01.2017, the day on which the petitioner submitted the application. The petitioner could have applied for leave in advance, if his presence in the court cases was required. The petitioner even after having been informed that the Civil Surgeon has refused to sanction the leave, did not report back on duty. In such circumstances, there is no force in the first argument. Second argument of the learned counsel is also without substance, particularly, when it is not the case of the petitioner that he came to know of the hearing in the court cases on 27.01.2017. An employee does not have a right to proceed on leave. This is a concession granted by the employer and the petitioner being a Senior Medical Officer was expected to seek the leave in advance so that an alternative arrangement could be made. However, the petitioner at the eleven
