Stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty requiring a regular departmental inquiry; failure to conduct such inquiry renders the order illegal.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Namit Kumar, J.

This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant( s) against the judgment and decree dated 30.01.1992 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jind, whereby appeal preferred by the defendant-respondent was allowed and suit of the plaintiff for declaration was dismissed.

2. Parties to the lis are being referred to as per their status before the trial Court. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order dated 10.04.1986 passed by the Collector, Jind, vide which one increment of the plaintiff was stopped with cumulative effect and pay in excess of subsistence allowance was withheld during suspension period and order dated 26.06.1986 passed by the Collector, Jind, whereby one increment of the plaintiff was stopped with cumulative effect, are bad in law. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Court of learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Jind, vide judgment and decree dated 03.10.1991 and impugned order dated 10.04.1986 vide which one increment was stopped with cumulative effect and pay in excess of subsistence allowance withheld during suspension period and impugned order dated 26.06.1986 vide which one increment of petitioner was stopped with cumulative effect, were set aside by recording a finding that since the said orders were passed without holding regular departmental inquiry, therefore, they cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment. However, liberty was granted to conduct fresh regular departmental inquiry on the basis of charge-sheet and allegations on which the impugned orders were passed.

3. The said judgment and decree dated 03.10.1991 was challenged by the defendant-respondent before the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Jind, in Civil Appeal No.113 of 91, which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 30.01.1992 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 03.10.1991 was set aside. Hence the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major punishment and the same could not be ordered in the absence of regular departmental inquiry and without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned. Since the impugned orders are passed by the authority without holding the departmental inquiry and without adhering to the principles of natural justice, therefore, the same are illegal, without jurisdiction, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the appellants.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the State of Haryana submitted that previously the services of the employees were governed by the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals)Rules, 1970 and the withholding of increment of pay was a minor punishment. He further submitted that the State of Haryana notified its own rules i.e. The Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal )Rules, 1987 and the punishment of withholding of increments of pay with cumulative effect for the first time was brought under the heading "Major Penalties" vide amendment notified on 19.11.1992. He has produced a copy of the said notification, which reads as under: -

"2. In the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, in rule 4, in sub-rule (1).--

(i) Under heading "Minor Penalties", for clause (v), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:-

"(v) withholding of increment of pay without cumulative effect,"

(ii) under heading "Major Penalties", the following clause shall be inserted, namely:-

"(v-a) withholding of increments of pay with cumulative effect,"."

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The present appeal was admitted on 03.08.1992. The only question which arises for determination by th