(119)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:- 08.05.2025 Sushil Kumar ...Appellant(s)

Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate, Mr. Arjun Sawhni, Advocate, Mr. Manu Gaur, Advocate, Mr. Rohit Kataria, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Saurav Verma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

* * * *

SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (ORAL)

1. This appeal, essentially, challenges the order dated 01.06.2011 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the petition i.e. CWP-8402-2003 filed by petitioner (appellant herein) was dismissed upholding the order dated 06.11.2002 (Annexure P-5) passed by Director General of Police, Punjab under Rule 13(i) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 removing the appellant from service with immediate effect on the ground of appellant having been convicted by the Trial Court vide judgement dated 16.07.2002 for an offence punishable u/s 498-A of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that the only illegality reflected in the order dated 06.11.2002 (Annexure P-5) is that the same is not a speaking order, wherein the competent/disciplinary authority has not disclosed its mind as to whether any inquiry was held on the following two aspects:-

(i) That as to whether in the given facts and circumstances and for the offence for which the appellant had suffered conviction, the appropriate punishment would be dismissal from service or any other lesser punishment.

(ii) That the order dated 06.11.2002 does not reflect that any mind was applied by the competent/disciplinary authority to the grounds raised in the reply filed by the appellant to the show cause notice dated 27.09.2002 (Annexure P-4).

3. To the extent indicated above, the impugned order dated 06.11.2002 removing the appellant from service is non-speaking.

4. The least that is expected of a disciplinary authority, while imposing major penalty against an employee, is to disclose that an inquiry was conducted (not a full scale inquiry, as contemplated by Rule 7 of the 1970 Rules), but one which satisfies the fundamental concept of reasonable opportunity coupled with the fact that the order should reflect that mind was applied to the relevant considerations as mentioned in para 2 (supra) and to the grounds raised by petitioner in reply to the show cause notice.

5. The relevant considerations are the quantum of punishment and also the grounds raised by appellant in his reply to show cause notice.

5.1 Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rajendra Prasad Chourey Vs Union of India through General Manager Security Paper Mill (M.P) and others (Writ Petition No. 1605 of

2018 decided on 27.01.2023) which reads as under:-

“7. It is now well settled that even if the terminology used in Rule 19 did not expressly provide for grant of reasonable opportunity of being heard prior to passing of the penalty order, the principle of natural justice - audi alterem partem, has to be read into the said provision to prevent it from being sacrificed at the alter of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

8. The cut short of the above said discussion is that since the concept of enquiry is involved in Rule 19, it is obvious that the petitioner before being imposed penalty was required to be afforded opportunity of being heard on the question of quantum of penalty.

8.1 Cases may arise where conviction may be for less grave or more grave offence, but in both such cases, the orders of penalty under Rule 19 cannot be the same. In conviction for graver offence involving moral turpitude, any of the major penalties under Rule 11 of th