T.L. SINGLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 07.05.1996 whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected against the order dated 28.01.1980 by which two grade increments of the petitioner were stopped with cumulative effect on the ground that no regular enquiry was made and further for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner for consequential benefits as if the said punishment order was not there. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Sub-Divisional Officer in the Department of Irrigation with effect from 17.02.1965 and was promoted as Executive Engineer with effect from 14.08.1980. The petitioner was, while working as Sub-Divisional Officer, Aliwal UBDC, Aliwal, issued show cause notice under Rule 10 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for brevity, the 'Rules') on 07.11.1978 by Chief Technical Examiner and Vigilance Officer, Irrigation Department, Punjab Memo No. 837/VC-309 regarding the earth work executed from RD 75 to 80/LMBU on left side of UBDC. The petitioner, in his reply to the show cause notice, submitted that wrong method of calculation of earth work was done and that the checking of the work in question was belated and it was done after the transfer of the petitioner and the full monsoon season stood passed on it and a good amount of the earth work was washed away due to rains. Without holding a regular enquiry, as provided under the Rules, the order dated 28.01.1980 had been imposed upon the petitioner wherein two grade increments with cumulative effect had been stopped and recovery was to be made from his pay separately for the excess payment of Rs. 12,904/- as costs of Rs. 3,86,750/- c.f.t. of earth work. The petitioner, aggrieved against the said order, filed statutory appeals/review dated 05.04.1980 and a further representation dated 01.06.1981 taking up the said grounds and further that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided. Respondent No. 1, vide order dated 19.11.1982, further ordered recovery of Rs. 5,589/- as 50% of total loss of Rs. 11,178/- and eventually, his review petition was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 07.05.1996. The challenge was primarily made on the ground that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab,1991 1 RSJ 413had held that punishment of withholding of increments with cumulative effect was a major punishment. The order dated 07.05.1996, rejecting the appeal/review was passed on the ground that the major penalty was to be considered with effect from 13.09.1990, the date of passing of the judgment in Kulwant Singh Gill's case . On the said basis, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the State, it was pleaded that show cause notice was issued and the petitioner submitted reply which was duly considered and 10% allowance in favour of the petitioner on account of late inspection of the work in question was granted. The stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect was passed on the ground that a similar offence had also been committed earlier by the petitioner on 10.10.1978. It was pleaded that holding of regular enquiry as provided under the Rules was only for imposing major penalty and so far the minor punishment, the punishing authority can itself hold an enquiry. The punishment was covered under Rule 5 which included withholding of increment of pay. The prior permission of the Public Service Commission was not necessary and post-facto sanction was taken on 27.02.1982. Thereafter, recovery order was passed and the petitioner was asked to make good a sum of Rs. 5589/-. The representation of the petitioner was considered and rejected vide order dated 30.09.1991. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kulwant Singh Gill's case was sought to be distinguished on the ground that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect was considered as a major punishment w.e.f. 13.09.1990 and the cases which stood decided from 13.09.1990 to 18.03-1991 need not be reopened in view of the instructions dated 07.05.1996. Accordingly, the impugned order was justified on the ground that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court had been passed subsequently.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has contended that impugned orders dated 28.01.1980 and 07.05.1996 were arbitrary and illegal and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court could not be applied prospectively.