D.K. SYAL Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, whereby order dated 20.7.1998 stopping four annual grade increments with future effect passed by the Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala (for short 'the Board') had been upheld and the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that during the tenure of working as Executive Engineer, the plaintiff-appellant was served with a charge-sheet dated 16.10.1985 and four charges were levelled against him. Shri Manmohan Singh, P.C.S., Deputy Secretary, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. According to the Enquiry Report submitted by him, only Charge Nos. 1 and 2 were established against the appellant. As the competent authority found that there was some deficiency in Charge No. 1, the Enquiry Officer was asked to clarify the deficiencies. In the meantime Shri Manmohan Singh was transferred and the enquiry was entrusted to Shri Suresh Gupta, the then Superintending Engineer, and he was asked to hold enquiry with regard to Charge No. 1. Er. Suresh Gupta exonerated the appellant of charge No. 1. Resultantly, only charge No. 2 was proved against the appellant. In the meantime, the appellant was promoted as Superintending Engineer. After his promotion as Superintending Engineer, four annual grade increments of the appellant were stopped as a consequence of the Enquiry Report submitted by Shri Manmohan Singh, P.C.S. The appellant filed representation to challenge the stoppage of four annual grade increments with future effect before the Disciplinary Authority. The representation was rejected. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed. As the appeal was dismissed by passing a non-speaking order, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed and a direction was given to the Appellate Authority to pass the order after hearing the appellant and by passing a speaking order. Consequent upon the direction given by the High Court, the Appellate Authority passed the impugned order on 20.7.1998. The appellant filed a suit to challenge the order of punishment dated 12.3.1993 as well as the order dated 20.7.1998 passed by the appellate authority rejecting his appeal. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 10.4.2000. The appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 28.7.2001. Now the appellant has filed the present regular second appeal to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below.

(3.) Two points have been raised by Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, learned Senior Advocate. The first point raised by him is that the appellant was not supplied a copy of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer before imposing penalty of stoppage of four annual grade increments upon him. The second point of attack is that the default for which the appellant has been punished does not find mention in the charge-sheet supplied to him. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, the enquiry against the appellant was vitiated and the principles of natural justice have not been observed before penalising him.