Back
1994 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 36
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J
Inderjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board – Respondent
RSA-1191-1994
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vinod Kumar Kataria
For the Respondents: Vardaan Seth
The stoppage of annual increments with cumulative or future effect constitutes a major penalty, which requires a formal disciplinary inquiry in accordance with prescribed procedural rules; imposition of such a penalty without a full inquiry is illegal and void.
Headnote:(A) Punjab State Electricity Board (Employees Punishments and Appeal) Regulations, 1971 - Regulation 5 - Imposition of penalty of stoppage of annual increments with future/cumulative effect - Whether a major or minor penalty - Held, as per the law laid down in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, such a penalty constitutes a major penalty, necessitating a regular departmental inquiry in accordance with Regulations 8 and 9.
(B) Appellate Review - Perversity in findings - Where the lower courts applied incorrect versions of rules/regulations to determine the nature of a penalty, the resulting judgments are perverse and liable to be set aside. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was a Lower Division Clerk who was served with a show-cause notice regarding a departmental examination and subsequently faced an order imposing the penalty of stopping two annual increments with future/cumulative effect without a regular inquiry. Both the trial court and the 1st Appellate Court dismissed the appellant’s suit, erroneously relying on regulations that incorrectly classified the penalty as a minor one.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the penalty of withholding increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty. Since the respondent failed to hold a regular inquiry as mandated by the relevant regulations prevalent in 1990, the order imposing the penalty is per se void and illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether withholding annual increments with cumulative/future effect constitutes a major or minor penalty under the 1971 Regulations. 2. Whether the lack of a regular inquiry renders the penalty order illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: Following the precedent of the Supreme Court, the penalty of stopping increments with cumulative/future effect is characterized as a major penalty regardless of the specific wording of the regulation at the time, and any such penalty imposed without conducting a formal inquiry as per mandatory procedure is invalid.
Result: Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; suit decreed with consequential benefits.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background facts and initial departmental disciplinary action taken. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding the nature of the penalty imposed. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. classification of penalty and requirement for formal departmental inquiry. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. final court decision setting aside lower court judgments. (Para 23) |
****
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 22.02.1993 vide which the suit filed by the present appellant-plaintiff for declaration to the effect that order No.195/EPC-1336 dated 31.05.1990 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 23.08.1993 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 Regulation 10 of 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 of charge-sheet, the respondent-department passed an order dated 31.05.1990 imposing the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with future effect. It was the case of the plaintiff/present appellant that the same was a major punishment and it was incumbent upon the authorities to hold a regular inquiry before imposing the said punishment, which was not done and thus, the impugned order dated 31.05.1990 was required to be set aside on the said ground alone.
4. On the other hand, it was the case of the respondents that the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with future effect was a minor penalty as defined under Rule 5(iv) of the 1971 Regulations and thus, there was no requirement to hold a regular inquiry or issue a charge-sheet.
5. The trial Court vide order dated 21.09.1992 framed the following issues: -
“1. Whether the order dated 31.5.1990 is not legal and valid as alleged in the plaint? O.P.P.
2. Relief.”
6. After considering the documents on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that no regular inquiry was conducted in the present case but since as per Section 5(iv) of the 1971 Regulations, the punishment imposed was a minor punishment, thus, no regular inquiry was required to be held. The trial Court thus dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The 1st Appellate Court reiterated the said observations of the trial Court and further observed that since as per the relevant rules, the stoppage of two annual increments with future effect was a minor penalty, thus, even 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, would not apply. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the show cause notice is dated 14.08.1989 (Ex.P2) and the impugned order (Ex.P4) was passed on 31.05.1990, thus, the rules/regulations which were prevalent at the time of issuance of the said notice and the passing of the said impugned order would be relevant for consideration in the present case. It is further submitted that as per Regulation 5(iv) of the 1971 Regulations, which were prevalent at the relevant time, provided that withholding of increments of pay was a minor penalty, but did not specif
