Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL
Balour Singh – Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)
BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
1. Plaintiff has filed the present Regular Second Appeal under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918.
2. Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 25.02.1993 vide which the suit filed by the present appellant-plaintiff for declaration to the effect that order No.227 dated 18.06.1990 vide which two annual increments with future effect had been stopped without holding any regular inquiry was illegal, null and void, had been dismissed. Challenge is also the judgment of the 1st Appellate Court dated 22.01.1996 vide which the first appeal filed by the present appellant had also been dismissed.
3. Undisputed facts in the present case are that the plaintiff was working as a Lower Division Clerk in Punjab State Electricity Board at the relevant time and had given a departmental examination held on 22-23/06/1989 at Ferozepur and after having given the said exam, a show cause notice dated 14.08.1989 was issued to the plaintiff under the Punjab State Electricity Board (Employees Punishments and Appeal) Regulations, 1971 (hereinafter to be referred as "1971 Regulations"). Without holding any regular inquiry or issuance
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 ....
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.
Minor penalties require adherence to procedural fairness, including an inquiry, failing which the penalty is void.
Stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty requiring a departmental enquiry under the Chhattisgarh Civil Services Rules, 1966.
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 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....
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
