KARTAR SING Vs. STATE OF HARYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions are connected in the sense that the same employee has been visited with two orders of punishment for two independent episodes of misconduct. In CWP No. 5504 of 1989, the misconduct attributed to the Petitioner was that while he was an Accountant, he had not furnished some information particularly with reference to the anticipated rates and arrivals of agricultural produce to the Secretary from the sabzi mandi and that he had used some harsh language against his superior. A notice had been given to show cause as to why action shall not be taken for his non-cooperative conduct. This was resisted by the Petitioner contending that he was not doing the work of dispatch Clerk and the copy of the complete information was already with the Secretary and the question of completing the proforma did not arise. He also denied that he used any harsh language against the Secretary in the presence of the Board officials. According to him, the Secretary was favourably disposed towards sabzi mandi Clerk Prem Chand and his inaction has been foisted against the Petitioner and he had been made a scapegoat. Having given the explanation, he had sought for personal hearing. The authority, while passing the order dated 11.04.1988, stated that the explanation was not satisfactory and he had actually been found non-cooperative in the dispatch of his official duty and that he had misbehaved with the Secretary and used harsh language. On that basis, the Chief Administrator passed an order of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect.

(2.) In yet another case in CWP No. 5459 of 1989, the charge was that the 3rd Respondent-the Administrator had specifically given some instructions when the Petitioner was working as an Accountant-cum-Head Clerk not to pass the bill for Rs. 936.80 to one Gopal that included a claim for TA Bill. The Petitioner had deliberately disobeyed the direction and had allowed for the TA bill claimed by the said Gopal. When he was questioned on the same, the Petitioner was alleged to have met with other employees and carried a procession against the Administrator as though he had caused the salary bills of all employees to be stopped. A charge-sheet had been issued and an explanation obtained from the Petitioner, before an order was passed finding him guilty of the charges and withdrawing one grade increment with cumulative effect.

(3.) The learned senior counsel for the Petitioner would contend that as far as imposition of the minor penalty was concerned, the order came to be passed by the appellate authority without considering any of the objections made but by a cryptic order merely affirming the decision of the first authority. The learned Counsel would argue that as per the procedure as laid down by the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, any penalty could be imposed only for ''good and sufficient reasons'' and Rule 7 required an enquiry before imposition of penalties. The Section requires that no order imposing a major penalty shall be passed against a person to whom the Rules are applicable unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken. The Section contains elaborate procedure about how to constitute an enquiry, including procedure for appointment of an Enquiry Officer and permission to secure the mode of assistance for allowing the delinquent to be defended, before a final report is given. Rule 8 prescribes a procedure for imposing minor penalty that begins with the expression that it would be without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 7. The laid down procedure is that no order for imposing a minor penalty shall be passed unless he has been given an adequate opportunity of making the representation.