KULWANTSINGHGILL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and decree dated 18/02/1986 in Second Appeal No. 3204 of 1984 of Punjab and Haryana High court at Chandigarh. Theappellant/plaintiff while he was working as Inspector, Food and Supplies at Algaon, the Director, Food and Supplies, Punjab on 10/06/1976 visited the place and found him to have purchased sub-standard wheat a landing him in receiving a charge-sheet on 29/06/1976 for his misconduct. The appellant had submitted his explanation. Rules 8 and 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 for short 'the Rules' envisage the procedure to conduct an enquiry into the misconduct. But the disciplinary authority, on consideration of the explanation found that the appellant committed a minor misconduct. Accordingly by order dated 12/04/1977 directed stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The appellant laid the suit for a declaration that the offending order amounts to major penalty and imposition thereof without conducting enquiry as enjoined under Rules 8 and 9 is illegal. On contest by the respondent State, the trial court held that the impugned order amounts to major penalty and granted a decree invalidating the order. On appeal, though the District court confirmed, on further second appeal the High court held it to be minor penalty within the meaning of Rule 5 (iv) of the Rules obviating the need to make regular enquiry. Assailing the legality thereof this appeal has been filed.

(2.) The only question that needs decision is whether stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty Admittedly Rules 8 and 9 envisage conducting an enquiry into misconduct after giving an opportunity to the delinquent employee in the manner prescribed therein and on establishing the charge to pass an appropriate order imposing a major penalty prescribed in either clauses (v) to {ix) or minor penalty under clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 5 of the Rules. If it is a minor penalty indisputably the need to conduct regular enquiry has been dispensed with. Rule 5 prescribes the penalties thus:

(3.) Clauses (vi) to (ix) are not relevant to the facts of the case.