DR. K.G. TIWARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal question which arises for consideration in the instant case is - as to whether after issuing a charge sheet under rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') for imposition of a major penalty, for which the Rules envisage holding of a regular departmental enquiry, the authority can, on examination of the reply to the charge sheet, inflict a minor punishment without holding a regular departmental enquiry

(2.) In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon State of Punjab and another v. Chodhri Manphul Singh,1986 1 SLR 484; Satish Kumar Sharma v. The Punjab State Electricity Board and others,1989 5 SLR 150 and Hukam Singh v. State of Haryana, 1997 2 SCT 134, wherein Single Benches of this Court have held that where proceedings have been initiated under rule 7 of the Rules it is incumbent on the authority to hold a regular departmental enquiry as envisaged by the Rules and even if a minor punishment has to be inflicted, it can be done only after holding a regular departmental enquiry.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a decision of this Court in Samay Singh v. State of Haryana and another,1993 1 SCT 331 (P&H)(DB) : 1993(1) RSJ 742. The factual position indicated in the aforesaid case was that the petitioner therein had been issued a charge sheet under rule 7 of the Rules for the imposition of a major punishment. However, a minor punishment was inflicted upon him after he filed his reply to the charge sheet without holding a regular departmental enquiry. Relying on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Shadi Lal Gupta v. State of Punjab, 1973 1 SLR 913 a Division Bench of this Court arrived at the conclusion that in order to inflict a minor punishment no enquiry was required to be conducted and that it was sufficient that the allegations on the basis of which the employee is charge sheeted should be made known to him and he should be given an opportunity to make representation in respect thereof. While deciding Shadi Lal Gupta's case the Apex Court was not confronted with a case like the one in hand wherein originally the proceedings initiated against the employee were for the imposition of a major punishment and on receipt of his reply to the charge sheet it had been decided to impose a minor punishment without holding a departmental enquiry. In fact, in Shadi Lal Gupta's case the question decided by the Courts was whether a departmental enquiry was required to be held even when the authorities had initiated action to punish the employee with a minor punishment. In deciding that aforesaid controversy the Apex Court arrived at the conclusion that it was not necessary to hold a regular departmental enquiry if the charge sheet had been issued for imposition of a minor punishment. In the aforesaid view of the matter, in our view the reliance by the Division Bench of this Court on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Shadi Lal Gupta's case was misplaced.