(119)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision:- 08.05.2025 Dilshad Ali ...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. Viren Sibal, Advocate, Mr. Satyam Sharda, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Saurav Verma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

* * * *

SHEEL NAGU, C.J. (ORAL)

1. This appeal, essentially, challenges the order dated 30.05.2011 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the petition i.e. CWP-13228-2009 filed by petitioner (appellant herein) was dismissed upholding the order dated 16.12.2008 (Annexure P-2) passed by Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Higher Education, Punjab removing the appellant from service on the ground of appellant having been convicted by the Trial Court vide judgement and order dated 28.04.2004 for the offences punishable u/s 406 and 498-A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs. 500/- and in case of default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in case of default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven days for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and that he had filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.05.2004 releasing him on probation for a period of one year.

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 16.12.2008 (Annexure P-2) is that the same is bereft of reasons expressly disclosing the reasons for which disciplinary authority took the decision of removing the petitioner from service.

2.1 No inquiry was held on the following crucial aspects:-

(i) That whether in the given facts and circumstances and for the offences 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 16.12.2008 also does not reflect that any mind was applied by the disciplinary authority to the grounds raised in the appeal/representation dated 26.12.2008 filed by the appellant against the order dated 16.12.2008.

3. To the extent indicated above, the impugned order dated 16.12.2008 of removal from service is vitiated for being non-speaking.

4. The least that is expected of a disciplinary authority, while imposing major penalty, is to disclose that an inquiry was conducted (not a full scale inquiry, as contemplated by Rule 7 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970), 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 petitioner’s appeal/representation dated 26.12.2008.

5. The relevant considerations are the quantum of punishment and also the grounds raised by appellant in his appeal/representation dated 26.12.2008 filed against the impugned order dated 16.12.2008.

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 o