SATBIR SINGH KADIAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 25.5.2011 (Annexure P-13) vide which a punishment has been imposed upon the petitioner which has been made the basis for not confirming him against a permanent post available in the Haryana Forest Service-II (for short HFS-II) cadre. Challenge is also to the order dated 28.2.2011/8.3.2011 (Annexure P-12) vide which punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Range Officer on 1.4.1982 and was promoted as HFS-II on 29.10.1999 vide order dated 19.10.1999. The petitioner was regularized in HFS-II w.e.f. 9.7.1999 vide order dated 17.1.2008. Final seniority list of HFS-II was issued on 5.12.2008 and the name of the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 19 while one P.S. Birthal was placed at Sr. No. 21 but his date of confirmation has been given as 1.4.2000 to which the petitioner objected stating that since a regular permanent post was available on that date, he should have been confirmed against the same, being senior to P.S. Birthal in the feeder cadre. The reason assigned for not confirming him was the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (for short 1987 Rules) which were pending. This, the counsel for the petitioner contends, is not sustainable on the ground that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 19.11.2004/10.1.2005. The said chargesheet having been issued after the availability of regular permanent post, the petitioner's claim for confirmation as HFS-II should have been considered against it and he should, in fact, have been confirmed. The same shall have no effect on his confirmation as on 1.4.2000, when the post became available, nothing was against him which would disentitle him to confirmation. This, he submits, on the basis of Rule 12 of the Haryana Forest Department (State Service) Group (B) Rules, 1980 (for short 1980 Rules). He contends that one year probation period has been fixed thereunder and confirmation is to be made from the date when a permanent vacancy occurs if he has been appointed against a temporary post. The maximum period provided for probation under this Rule is three years and even if the maximum period is taken into consideration, although the probation period beyond one year has not been extended, it would expire on 9.7.2002 and till that date, there was no departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner which would disentitle him to confirmation in HFS-II. On this basis, he contends that the order dated 25.5.2011 (Annexure P-13) cannot sustain.

(2.) As far as the impugned order dated 28.2.2011 (Annexure P-12) is concerned, counsel for the petitioner submits that in a departmental enquiry, which was initiated against him on issuance of the charge-sheet dated 19.11.2004, the Inquiry Officer in his report exonerated the petitioner of the charges. The said report was not accepted by the Punishing Authority and a dissenting note was conveyed to him to which he filed a detailed reply but the same has not been considered by the Competent Authority and a totally non-speaking order dated 28.2.2011 has been passed which, thus, cannot sustain. On this basis, he prays that the present writ petition be allowed.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned orders are in accordance with law as on the day when the case of the petitioner was considered for confirmation, the departmental proceedings were pending against him. He contends that in the light of the pendency of the proceedings, which had been initiated for punishment under Rule 7 of the 1987 Rules and also when the conduct of the petitioner was itself in doubt, there was no question of confirming him in HFS-II. So far as the order of punishment dated 28.2.2011 passed in the departmental proceedings (Annexure P-12) is concerned, he submits that the said order is justified and well reasoned one wherein the facts mentioned above and the conclusion drawn by the Punishing Authority is in accordance with law and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of this writ petition.