O K BHARDWAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner O.K. Bhardwaj was appointed as a Warehouse Assistant Grade II on 16.3.1985 by respondent No.2, Central Warehousing Corporation. He was posted at Sonepat branch of respondent No.2. On 31.10.1991 Shri Jagjit Singh, Deputy Manager (Technical Division) visited the godowns where the petitioner was working and he made certain investigation. In the said investigation he found certain serious irregularities and lapses. He recorded the statement of the petitioner in respect of the lapses observed by him as he had found 421 non-standard bags and when all those 421 non-standard bags were weighed and converted only 367 standard 100 per cent bags could be found. Thereafter two memos dated 24.6.92 and 30.6.92 were issued to the petitioner. By the first memo dated 24.6.92 he was called upon to give explanation regarding certain charges levelled against him and to the said memo he had given his reply and asked for supply of certain documents and on getting the said documents he was going to submit detailed reply but the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner thought it proper not to proceed with the departmental enquiry for consideration of awarding major penalty against the petitioner and in view of the material available it passed an order dated 3.8.92 awarding minor penalty of stopping three increments with cumulative effect.

(2.) The petitioner has filed the present petition to challenge the said order of stopping his three increments with cumulative effect. It is his contention that the stopping of three increments with cumulative effect was illegal as no departmental enquiry was held against him. According to him no charges were levelled against him and his explanation regarding the charges was also not sought for. Therefore, in these circumstances, the order of stopping his increments with cumulative effect is illegal. It is also against the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the same should be quashed.

(3.) We had directed the petitioner to produce the rules and regulations governing the respondent No.2 and we had also called upon him to clear as to whether the penal- ty awarded to him was a minor penalty or a major penalty. Accordingly, the petitioner has produced on record the Central Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also made his submissions in detail. He has also cited before us the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab 1991 Suppl. (1) S.C.C. 504 and has contended before us that the penalty in question would be major penalty and the awarding of major penalty without holding any departmental proceeding is illegal and ultra vires. The said order is also against the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not at all heard before awarding the said penalty. He, therefore, wants us to admit this writ petition.