R S DHULL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, Ex-Captain R.S. Dhull, now posted as Tehsildar at Hissar Division, Hissar has prayed for the issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 21.8.1987 Annexure P-4 whereby he was punished with the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and also retrospectively.

(2.) It is stated that he was posted as Tehsildar, Nuh in the year 1985 with the powers of Assistant Collector First Grade under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, limited to hearing partition cases. Vide order dated 14.8.1984 District Revenue Officer, Gurgaon had remanded case Mohammad Isa v. Punam and others, to the petitioner for decision afresh after giving fresh opportunity to the parties. At the time of hearing of the case, counsel for one of the parties objected that the remand order was non-est and without jurisdiction as the District Revenue Officer had not been vested with the powers of District Collector under the Punjab Land Revenue Act. Petitioner noted down the contention of the parties in the order dated 12.8.1985 and decided the case on merit without giving any weight to that contention. Respondent No. 2, who was Commissioner, Hissar Division, Hissar took this act as an act of insubordination on his part or involving contempt of court. He punished him with the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and retrospectively vide order Annexure P-4. Petitioner's grievance is that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect was a major penalty. For major penalty, the procedure is as defined in rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (for short the rules), as such there should have been a regular inquiry. It is stated that the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was passed against him without any regular inquiry. No charge sheet was drawn up against him. No statement of allegations was supplied to him. No list of witnesses etc. was suppled to him. Procedure as to the imposition of minor penalties as envisaged in rule 8 of the rules was followed.

(3.) Respondent No. 2 contested this writ petition and urged that the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effects was a minor penalty and the same was imposed upon him under the rules after following procedure under rule 8 of the rules. He was charge-sheeted under rule 8 of the rules provided for minor penalty. No procedure for major penalty was required to be followed.