S K ANAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Public Analyst in the Food Laboratory, Chandigarh is aggrieved by the order dated January 29, 1991 by which punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect, which had been reduced to simple warning by the Minister, has been restored.

(2.) The petitioner was given a charge-sheet on March 7, 1986 under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. It was alleged that the petitioner was guilty of certain lapses. He submitted his reply on April 21, 1986, which was subsequently supplemented by another reply dated May 21, 1986. On consideration of the reply and after hearing the petitioner in person, punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner represented against this order. Vide order dated January 19, 1988, the same officer (Mr. T.D. Jogpal), Commissioner & Secretary to Government, Haryana, conveyed an order that "It has been decided to reduce the punishment awarded for stoppage of two grade increments to Sh. S.K. Anand to simple warning to be careful in future." Subsequently, vide order dated January 29, 1991, it was observed that" the appointing/disciplinary authority of Shri S.K. Anand, Public Analyst, is the State Government and punishment of stoppage of two increments could only be reviewed by the Governor of Haryana through a memorial. In view of this, the orders passed by the then Health Minister to reduce the punishment of stoppage of two grade increments to a simple warning was not in accordance with the provisions of rules and were not legally correct. The H.P.S.C. has also objected to the issuance of the said order. In view of the above, the erroneous order endorsed vide No. 12/45/83-2 HB-II, dated 4.2.88 is hereby withdrawn". As a result, the punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect stood restored. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. The impugned order has been challenged inter alia on the ground that the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect amounts to imposition of a major penalty. It is averred that such an action could not have been taken except after holding a regular inquiry under the rules. It has been further averred that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity whatsoever to the petitioner.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in which it has been inter alia stated that the reply submitted by the petitioner to the charge-sheet was duly considered and he was also heard personally on August 18, 1986 by the Punishing Authority. It has been further averred that the petitioner represented against the order dated August 24, 1987 to the then Health Minister, who was not competent to take any action on the representation. According to the respondents, the petitioner could have only submitted a Memorial to the Governor of Haryana. Accordingly, it is averred that the order passed in the representation by the Minister is not sustainable. It has been further averred that there is no provision under rule 8 of the Rules making it incumbent upon the Authority to hold regular enquiry before passing an order of punishment. In reply to the petitioner's assertion that he has not been given reasonable opportunity of making representation against the penalty imposed upon him by review of the order, it has been inter alia averred that the punishment order has been passed after following proper procedure prescribed under rule 8 of the Rules.