Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL
Harinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) -
INDEX
Paras | Pages | |
Challenge in the appeal | 1-3 | 1-2 |
Arguments on behalf of the appellant | 4-5 | 2-4 |
Arguments on behalf of the respondent | 6 | 4-5 |
Analysis & Findings | 7-26 | 5-20 |
Relief | 27 | 20-21 |
1. Plaintiff has filed by the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 .
2. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court to the extent that the suit of the plaintiff has not been decreed in toto and although the orders dated 11.10.1984 and 10.06.1980 had been held to be illegal, null and void but the order dated 28.04.1980 had been upheld. Challenge is also to the judgment of the trial Court dated 09.04.1990 vide which the suit of the plaintiff had not been decreed in toto and only the order dated 11.10.1984 had been held to be null and void, whereas, the orders dated 28.04.1990 and 10.06.1980 had been held to be valid.
3. Since the 1st Appellate Court had even held the order dated 10.06.1980 to be illegal, null and void and no cross-appeal has been filed by the respondent/defendant, thus, only issue which is required to be considered in the present case is with respect to the legality of the order dated 28.04.1980
The stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is deemed a major penalty requiring a formal inquiry as per relevant regulations and previous court rulings.
Stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty requiring a regular departmental inquiry; failure to conduct such inquiry renders the order illegal.
The imposition of major penalties, such as withholding increments with cumulative effect, requires a proper enquiry as per established legal principles.
Suspended from service - Minimum period of permanent barring of increment shall not be less than one year and maximum period shall not be more than three years - Permanent barring of increment shall ....
Minor penalties require adherence to procedural fairness, including an inquiry, failing which the penalty is void.
The court ruled that a major penalty procedure cannot be converted into a minor penalty procedure without explicit regulatory provisions, but found no prejudice in the minor penalty imposed.
The court affirmed that a penalty classified as minor does not require a full inquiry, and the procedural requirements for imposing such penalties were adequately met.
The disciplinary authority must provide reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, record its own findings on the charges, and provide the government servant with an opportunity to file a writ....
A valid departmental inquiry requires adherence to procedural safeguards, including the establishment proving charges through evidence, or it is deemed invalid.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
