Disciplinary orders must be passed by a competent authority in accordance with procedural safeguards to ensure justice and upholding of statutory regulations.

JUDGMENT :

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. 

1. Prayer in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 12.09.2016 (Annexure P-4), vide which an amount of Rs.8,11,736/-, have been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner and also 25% cut forever in pension has also been imposed upon the petitioner. Further prayer has been made to stay the operation of the order dated 12.09.2016 (Annexure P-4), during the pendency of the present petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the punishment order dated 12.09.2016 (Annexure P-4) is legally unsustainable as it was not passed by the competent authority. He submits that the said order was passed by the Board of Directors, which is the Appellate Authority. However, in terms of Regulation 4 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Technical Services Class-III Regulations, 1996, the competent authority to pass such an order, is either the General Manager or the Engineer-in-Chief. He further submits that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of personal hearing prior to the issuance of the punishment order. As such, the impugned order stands vitiated both on the ground of having been passed by an incompetent authority and due to non-compliance of the principles of natural justice. Lastly, he submits that the petitioner was also not given any opportunity to present his defence, during the course of the inquiry proceedings.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents, at the very outset, took preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the statutory appeal against the impugned order has not been filed by the petitioner. Further, the disciplinary action was initiated against five delinquent officials, however, on the asking of the petitioner, his inquiry was separated from the others and the same has been concluded as such. He further submits that the impugned order is sustainable in view of the fact that one of the delinquent official, who was facing the departmental proceedings along with the petitioner, was a Chief Engineer and as per Regulation 5, 22 and Appendix ‘D’ of Punjab State Electricity Board (now Punjab State Power Corporation Limited), the authority competent to impose penalty on Chief Engineer is Whole Time Members in erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board (now called Whole Time Directors in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited).

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with their able assistance.

5. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the impugned order dated 12.09.2016 has been conveyed by the Deputy Secretary, Technical-IV, Patiala. Although the decision was taken by Whole Time Directors in their 185^th meeting held on 30.08.2016 and vide Agenda No.196, the punishment has been imposed. The manner in which the punishment has been imposed is not in consonance with the erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board, Technical Services Class III Regulations, 1996 (in short ‘the Regulations of 1996’). Regulation 4 of the Regulations of 1996, provide that the appointing authority of the service are mentioned in Annexure A whereas Regulation 16 of the Regulations of 1996, provide for discipline, punishment and appeal. According to this Regulation, the appellate authority have been mentioned in Annexure A of the Regulations of 1996. The relevant contents of Annexure A of the Regulations of 1996, reads as follows:-

Annexure A

Referred in Regulation 4 and 16 (b) of the Regulations of 1996