KAMAL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Kamal Kumar was appointed as an Accounts Clerk on 25.12.1983 in Haryana Women and Weaker Sections Development Corporation Limited (hereinafter called the 'Corporation'). He was placed under suspension on 10.7.1987 and was charge-sheeted on 11.9.1987 for alleged absence from duty without permission or sanction of leave. It is not disputed that Haryana Civil Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 (in short 'the Rules') are applicable to the employees of the Corporation. After following the procedure under the Rules, the punishment of dismissal was imposed on the petitioner on 18.1.1988. However, his appeal before the Chairman was allowed on 28.1.1989 to the extent that the punishment was reduced to stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect and further the intervening period from the date of dismissal and reinstatement was to be treated as leave without pay. Further the petitioner was to be kept at Headquarter at Chandigarh and his work was to be observed.

(2.) It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not mend his ways after he was reinstated by the Appellate order referred to above and he misconducted himself by remaining absent on various occasions without permission or sanction of leave. A charge-sheet dated 18.7.1989 was served on him under Rule 7 of the Rules in which it was alleged that petitioner had remained absent from duty on various occasions, the details of which were mentioned in the charge-sheet. A reply was submitted by the petitioner giving explanation as to why he was absent on the alleged dates of absence. The Managing Director (Appointing Authority) after considering the reply, passed an order on 21.9.1989 that the explanation furnished by the petitioner had not been found satisfactory and he was provisionally of the opinion that a penalty of dismissal from service be imposed upon him. An opportunity of showing cause was given against the action proposed to be taken. After considering the reply, another showcause notice was issued on 30.10.1989 as to why penalty of dismissal be not imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply (Annexure P-7) specifically raising the point that no regular departmental enquiry under the Rules had been held before proposing the punishment. Thereafter, order dated 12.12.1989 (Annexure P-8) was passed by the Managing Director dismissing the petitioner from service. An appeal was also filed by the petitioner from service. All appeal was also filed by the petitioner before the Chairman of the Corporation. However, the same was also rejected and communication regarding the same was sent to the petitioner on 3.5.1990 (Annexure P-10). Petitioner impugned the order of dismissal and rejection of his appeal by filing the present writ petition. It may be observed here that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner, unfortunately died on 19.11.1992, and this writ petition is being pursued by his wife, who was allowed to do so vide orders in C.M. No. 738 of 1993.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that admittedly the petitioner was proceeded under the Rules for taking disciplinary action against him and charge-sheet under Rule 7 of the Rules was served on him. Further he has submitted that no regular enquiry was held under the Rules by the respondents before impugning the punishment and consequently the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as being violative of the procedure mentioned in the Rules and also principles of natural justice.