STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SATISH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SATISH Chander, Draftsman (Civil) Instructor while posted at Industrial Institute, Ferozepur Jhirka was charge sheeted under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1987 by the Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana Chandigarh -defendant No. 2 on 4.3.1992 for certain alleged acts of misconduct. After the so called inquiry, the Inquiry Officer gave findings in his favour and held the Charges not proved. Despite Inquiry Officer having held charges not proved, he was punished with the stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect by the Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana Chandigarh. He went in appeal to the Secretary to Government, Department of Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana. His appeal was rejected saying that the same was barred by time. Rejection of the appeal was conveyed to him by the Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana vide Memo dated 14.9.1995. Plaintiff Satish Chander filed suit for declaration to the effect that order dated 20.5.93 passed by defendant no. 2 punishing him with the stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect is illegal, null and void and against the statutory rules governing the service so also the order dated 14.4.95 passed by the Secretary to Government, Department of Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana rejecting his appeal. By way of consequential relief, he prayed for mandatory injunction directing them to restore the annual increments of the plaintiff stopped through the aforesaid orders and further to release arrears with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum. It was alleged in the plaint that the punishing authority should have recorded reasons for differing with the report of the Inquiry Officer. No reason was given by the punishing authority for differing with the report of the Inquiry Officer. He was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. There was thus violation of the principles of natural justice. Appellate Authority should have condoned delay. Appellate Authority without considering his request to condone delay rejected his appeal through non -speaking order. No opportunity was given to him by the Appellate Authority. At the relevant time, plaintiff filed suit at Sirsa because at the date of institution of the suit, he was posted at Sirsa and the order rejecting his appeal was conveyed to him at Sirsa.

(2.) DEFENDANT -State of Haryana contested the suit of the plaintiff urging that he was found guilty of the charges. He was granted opportunity of personal hearing before the order punishing him with the stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect was passed. Order of punishment was passed after perusing the evidence on the inquiry file and after giving him full opportunity of hearing. Appeal was rejected being time barred. There was no question of condoning delay in filing the appeal by the Appellate Authority when no explanation had been given by him for the delayed filing of appeal.

(3.) Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sirsa decreed the plaintiffs suit for declaration to the effect that order dated 20.5.93 passed by defendant no. 2 punishing him with the stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect was illegal, null and void and was liable to be set aside and so also the order rejecting his appeal dated 14.9.95 by the Appellate Authority and for mandatory injunction directing the State of Haryana to restore him the increments stopped through the said orders and to pay him all arrears, in view of his findings, that the punishing authority could not have disagreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer, without giving reasons and reasons for such disagreement should have been supplied to the delinquent. It was found that the disagreement by the punishing authority with the report of Inquiry Officer without giving reasons for such disagreement was not fair and against the principles of natural justice. It was found that if he were to disagree with the report of the Inquiry Officer reasons for such disagreement should have been communicated to the delinquent, so that delinquent had the opportunity to show that disagreement was untenable, in view of the evidence on record and the findings of the Inquiry Officer holding him not guilty of the charges were sustainable on the evidence on record of the inquiry. In this case, punishing authority had given no indication to the plaintiff that these are the reasons for his disagreement with the report of the Inquiry Officer and thus the plaintiff had no opportunity to tender explanation before the punishing authority.