S.K. MALHOTRA Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as an Accounts Officer in the Haryana State Electricity Board and has since retired from service has a two fold grievance. Firstly he is aggrieved by the order dated Sept. 30, 1986, by which the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed on him. Secondly, the petitioner claims that he was due for promotion to the post of Senior Accounts Officer w.e.f. Sept. 1, 1985 when a person junior to him was actually promoted. According to the petitioner, his claim was illegally ignored on the ground that the charge-sheet was pending against him. It is averred that the order of punishment being wholly illegal, the action of the respondents in ignoring him for promotion cannot be sustained.

(2.) The petitioner avers that on receipt of a show cause notice vide letter dated Jan. 10, 1986, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.3, the petitioner had requested the Board to show him certain records so that he could furnish his reply. A copy of this letter has been produced by the petitioner as Annexure P.4. It is averred that he had not received any reply thereto. On the contrary, the impugned order dated Sept. 30, 1986 was passed, by which the proposed punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was infected on him. Even his appeal against this order was summarily rejected vide order dated Aug. 14, 1987. The petitioner submits that both the impugned orders are cryptic and have been passed without any application of mind. It is further claimed that the action of the respondent in ignoring the petitioner only on account of the pendency of a case against him was wholly illegal. On these premises, even the order dated Nov. 7, 1990 by which it was directed that the period of suspension shall be treated as 'non-duty period for all intents and purposes' is also challenged.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been inter alia averred that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated May 7, 1985. After the petitioner had inspected the record on June 26, 1985 and after the receipt of his reply, he was given an opportunity by way of a show-cause notice dated Jan. 10, 1986 for "inflicting minor punishment. Originally, there were six charges against the petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 7.5.85 (p.2), but after considering his reply and the material available on record, the petitioner was served with show cause notice in respect of three charges only. It is amply clear that the competent authority has fully taken into account all material available on record including the reply of the petitioner while issuing the show cause notice. The charges as levelled in the show cause notice were found fully proved on record...." On this premises, the order of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is sought to be supported. Further, it has been averred that the petitioner's appeal against this order has been rejected. In view of this position, it has been averred that "the petitioner has been rightly ignored for further promotion to the post of Senior-Accounts Officer, at the relevant time. However, on the availability of next post, the petitioner was considered and was promoted accordingly.