PURAN CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Once a charge-sheet for the imposition of a major punishment, as envisaged by Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') has been served, does it thereby preclude the Punishing Authority from inflicting a minor punishment except upon completion of enquiry under the said rule 8 ? In other words, before the completion of such an enquiry, is the Punishing Authority empowered to inflict a minor penalty just upon consideration of the reply/defence of the government employee concerned? Herein lies the point in issue.

(2.) The challenge here is to the imposition of the minor punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect imposed upon the petitioner Puran Chand Sharma, Headmaster Government High School, Bhareri Kalan, in District Ambala, on the ground that a charge-sheet having been served upon the petitioner in terms of rule 8 of the Rules, the imposition of a minor punishment merely upon consideration of the reply to the charge-sheet without completing the enquiry was not competent.

(3.) The legal proposition canvassed does indeed find support from judicial precedents. In State of Punjab and another v. Ch. M. Singh,1986 1 SLJ 49, a charge-sheet relating to a major penalty was served upon the plaintiff. On considering his reply, however, the minor punishment of stoppage of two increments was imposed upon him. In the suit to challenge this order, J.V. Gupta, J. observed "It may be that in order to inflict minor punishment no enquiry as such may be conducted or is necessary but once, after issuing the chargesheet under rule 8, the enquiry is held (then minor punishment may be imposed as contemplated in clause (3) of rule 9 if the punishing authority so chooses at the time of awarding the punishment instead of the major punishment. But at the same time once the proceeding has been initiated under rule 8, then for inflicting a minor punishment, the procedure as required under rule 8 has to be followed for awarding a minor punishment under rule 9(3)." This was later approved and followed by V.K. Jhanji, J. in Ram Kumar Goel v. The State of Haryana and another,1991 99 PunLR 352 We, however, cannot, with respect, subscribe to this view.