The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a fair and regular enquiry in cases of major penalties, the necessity of assigning reasons for punishment, and the violation of principles of natural justice.

Devi Prasad Singh, V.D. Chaturvedi, JJ.

The present writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order of punishment dated 28.9.1992 (Annexure-1), by which the District Magistrate, Unnao has punished the petitioner awarding censure entry as well as recovery of salary of the period from 25.5.1990 to 29.10.1990 and withholding the integrity permanently. Annual increment in salary was also stopped permanently.

2. The petitioner was Reader-cum-Ahalmad working in the office of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Unnao. During the course of employment, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 14.3.1992, broadly containing two charges-the first relates to absence from duty from 25.5.1990 to 29.10.1990 and second in regard to irregularity committed for grant of selection grade. After receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 30.4.1992 and submitted that during the period in question, the petitioner was on medical leave and on account of serious illness, he could not attend the duty. He denied that he committed any illegality in accepting selection grade. After receipt of reply to the charge-sheet, the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 4.8.1992 and in consequence thereof, the petitioner has been punished by the order under challenge.

3. In brief, the petitioner's counsel submits that being permanent employee, it was incumbent on the opposite parties to hold regular enquiry. Punishment awarded to the petitioner amounts to major penalty which is not sustainable under law. No date, time or place was fixed by the enquiry officer. Copy of the enquiry report was also not provided to the petitioner and straightaway, after receipt of the reply to the charge-sheet, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of punishment.

4. The other submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is a non-speaking one and does not assign reason. According to him, the punishment awarded to the petitioner is not minor; rather it is a major penalty under service rules.

5. On the other hand, learned standing counsel submits that the punishment awarded to the petitioner amounts to minor penalty and accordingly it was not necessary to hold regular enquiry.

6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

7. So far as the submission with regard to the penalty in question is concerned, it appears that the punishment awarded to the petitioner may be termed as major penalty. The annual increment was stopped permanently apart from forfeiting the salary of the period in question.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Sadanand Pandey v. Chief Secretary to Government of U.P. and Ors. (1993) 1 UPLBEC 83, where a Division Bench of this Court held that withholding of increment permanently amounts to major penalty. It has been further held that while awarding punishment, the punishing authority must assign reasons therefor. In view of the settled proposition of law, the impugned order may not be treated as minor penalty; rather it is a major penalty and accordingly, it was incumbent on the part of the opposite parties to hold regular enquiry.

9. There is one more reason which necessitates the enquiry officer to hold a regular enquiry. In the present case, a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and after receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner had submitted a reply denying the charges levelled against him. After receipt of the reply to the charge-sheet, the enquiry officer submitted a report on 4.8.1992. While submitting reply to the charge-sheet, the petitioner has specifically pleaded that the enquiry officer has not conducted the enquiry fairly. Since the respondents have proceeded ahead by adopting the procedure of major penalty and the enquiry officer has completed the enquiry and submitted a report, the defence taken by the learned standing counsel does no