JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) -

INDEX

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 (Ex.P3), vide which one annual increment of the appellant was stopped with cumulative effect, without holding a regular enquiry.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order dated 28.04.1980 (Ex.P3) vide which the major penalty of stoppage of one annual increment with future/cumulative effect was imposed upon the present appellant, deserves to be set aside on two grounds. It is submitted that for imposing a major penalty, it was incumbent upon the authorities to have held a regular inquiry and the procedure as detailed in Regulations 8 and 9 of the of the Punjab State Electricity Board (Employees Punishments and Appeal) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as '1971 Regulations'), which were applicable in the year 1980 at the time of the passing of the impugned order were required to be followed. It is further submitted that in the present case, admittedly, the said procedure had not been followed as neither any charge-sheet/substance of allegations along with the list of documents/list of witnesses had been supplied to the appellant nor any inquiry officer had been appointed nor any witness had been examined, much less, cross-examined nor any inquiry report had been submitted and nor any further hearing, subsequent to the said inquiry, had been given to the appellant-plaintiff. It is further submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. The State of Punjab', reported as Supp 1991 (1) SCC 504, the stoppage of increment with cumulative effect/future effect is a Imajor penalty and in case the regular inquiry and the procedure as prescribed under the regulations/rules is not followed, then, the order imposing penalty would be per se void. It is further submitted that in the said case, apart from holding the impugned order therein to be void, it had further been observed that on account of lapse of time, it would not be expedient to direct a regular inquiry at that stage. It is submitted that the case of the present appellant is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill (supra).

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has furth