IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

R.S.A. No. 4357 of 2010

Date of decision: September 04, 2012

S.C. Verma

.. Appellant

Vs.

Haryana State and others

.. Respondents

R.S.A. No. 4358 of 2010

S.C. Verma

.. Appellant

vs.

Haryana State and others

.. Respondents.

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal

Present:

Mr. Chander Shekhar, Advocate for the appellant.

A.N. Jindal, J

This judgment shall dispose of two connected regular second

appeal Nos. 4357 and 4358 of 2010, involving the similar question of law.

However, for convenience, facts are being taken up from R.S.A. No. 4357

of 2010.

The suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for declaring the order

dated 29.5.2006 passed by the defendant No.2 and the order dated

16.11.2007 passed by the defendant No.4 as illegal, null and void, was

decreed by the trial court on 16.5.2009. However, the appeal filed against

the said judgment and decree by the respondents-defendants was accepted

by the appellate court on 27.2.2010 and the suit filed by the plaintiff was

dismissed, which is now under challenge before me in this regular second

appeal.

The plaintiff was posted as Junior Engineer from 7.7.1991 to

1.8.1996 in Pundri Water Services, Service Division, Kaithal where he was

served a show cause notice containing the following allegations :-

1.

The appellant while being Junior Engineer, In-charge of

Rohera minor from reach 0 to 30000 framed four

R.S.A. No. 4357 of 2010 &

R.S.A. No. 4358 of 2010

-2-

number estimates for silt clearance of the minor by

splitting the whole reach into smaller sub reaches.

Estimated cost of all the four estimates is less than

Rs.20,000/- which falls in the financial competency of

Executive Engineer to sanction. By keeping the cost of

each estimate as less than Rs.50,000/-, the necessity of

inviting tender through press as per para 2.67 PWD

Code has been given a go bye. Though he is very junior

official and subject to pressure of higher officers but in

the present case he has done so willingly as he never

pointed out the irregularities while framing the

estimates. Thus, Sh. S.C. Verma, Junior Engineer

infringed upon para 2.67 PWD Code by framing and

submitting the estimates by splitting the whole reach of

the said works into sub reaches to circumvent the rules

pertaining to financial power to sanction and press

tender.”

The plaintiff filed reply to the show cause notice and after

providing him opportunity of being heard personally, the order dated

1.3.2006 was passed whereby his two increments without cumulative effect

were stopped. He preferred appeal but the same was also dismissed. Thus,

the plaintiff has challenged the aforesaid orders by way of filing the suit.

The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendants

reiterated that the plaintiff was not working properly and was not

discharging his duties faithfully. He, in order to circumvent the rule of the

PWD Code and to avoid the necessary tenders and sanctioning of the work

and to bring the estimates within the financial competency of the Executive

Engineer splitted the work estimate into four estimates, therefore, charge

sheet was served upon him and after compliance of the whole procedure, the

punishing authority awarded the punishment of stoppage of two annual

increments without cumulative effect. The punishment being minor penalty,

no elaborate procedure was required to be followed.

R.S.A. No. 4357 of 2010 &

R.S.A. No. 4358 of 2010

-3-

As regards R.S.A. No. 4358 of 2010, it also involves the

similar issue as to whether regular enquiry was required to be held before

passing the minor penalty. In this case, the work on whole reach from RD

102000 to 126000 was got completed in a closure of one week duration by

employing labour at four to five points at one time. The work was

completed within such a short duration which was not possible. Actually

the fictitiou