HARDIAL SINGH Vs. PUNJAB MANDI BOARD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petition is at the instance of a decree holder. Through the suit, a decree granted is that the decision by a State functionary imposing punishment had been rendered without issuing show cause notice against the enquiry officer's report and imposing a punishment without following the rules of natural justice. The Court has passed the order setting aside the impugned punishment and decreed the suit with the following directions:

(2.) WHEN the original decree was put in execution, the defence was that a fresh punishment order had been imposed after an enquiry contemplated in the decretal directions and therefore the execution could not be levied on the first directions contained in the decree. The objection was upheld and the execution petition was dismissed. On revision to this Court, counsel's contention is; i) that the authority has passed the order of punishment beyond the period of two months and therefore it is not valid. ii) the order passed subsequently will take effect only from the day when the order was passed and therefore the increment which had already accrued shall avail to him. Counsel relies on the decision of this Court in Randhir Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, 2000 (2) SCT 576 where the Court held once the punishment order is held to be improper and defective and the Court orders fresh enquiry, the punishment order becomes ineffective and non -existent and cannot operate any more during fresh enquiry.