HARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As a result of enquiry, a composite order imposing penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect and depriving the employee of pay and allowances during the period of suspension, was passed. Hari Singh, appellant, filed a suit for declaration challenging this order being illegal, arbitrary and being violative of mandatory provisions of Punjab Punishment and Appeal Rules besides principles of natural justice. It was also pleaded that a composite order of punishment could not be passed whereby four annual increments were ordered to be stopped with cumulative effect and also depriving him to pay and allowances for the period of suspension. Other allegations made were that proper procedure had not been followed during the course of enquiry. On notice the suit was contested by the defendants and written statement was filed controverting all the allegations made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties, the only relevant issue framed was whether the order dated 28th September, 1984 was illegal.

(2.) Learned trial Court by judgment and decree dated January 8, 1988, dismissing the suit by holding that the Punishing Authority before passing the order of punishment had served a notice on the plaintiff giving him an opportunity to show-cause besides affording him an opportunity of being heard in person. The contention of the plaintiff that the Disciplinary Authority was under an obligation to record reasons in case it differed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer exonerating the employee before issuing a show cause notice regarding the proposed punishment and that the order was vitiated on that count alone was not considered.

(3.) The plaintiff preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 15.12.1989. Again two contentions were raised in appeal i.e. (i) the employee could not be punished by imposing a penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect and simultaneously deprive him of pay and allowances for the suspension period and (ii) the plaintiff having been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer and the Punishing Authority, disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer and tentatively holding him guilty of the charges, was required to communicate brief reasons of its disagreement before calling upon him to show cause against the proposed punishment. On the aforesaid counts it was argued that the order of penalty was vitiated being illegal and contrary to the rules. These contentions were repelled stating that objection regarding composite notice had not been taken in reply to the show-cause notice and in any case no prejudice was caused to him on this court. It was further observed that since a personal hearing had been afforded to the plaintiff, he had no grouse against the order of penalty. With these observations, the appeal, as already stated, was dismissed. Hence the second appeal.