NIRANJAN LAL, INSPECTOR (AUDIT) Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 16.7.1993 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana (respondent No. 2) is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure P-8 and has also prayed that the respondents be directed to grant all consequential benefits to which he becomes entitled as a result of quashing of the said order and also pay him all his dues for the period of suspension between 6.7.1989 to 30.4.1990. A prayer has also been m ade for award of interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(2.) The petitioner, who has since retired from service, had joined service as Sub Inspector in the Cooperative Department of the then State of Punjab. He was promoted as Inspector (Audit) in April, 1981. He was placed under suspension by order, dated 27.6.1989 by respondent No. 2. After having been kept under suspension for about ten months, he was reinstated by respondent No. 2 vide order, Annexure P-1 dated 9.4.1990. On reinstatement, the petitioner prayed that he be granted full pay and allowances as well as increments for the period during which he had remained under suspension. In response to one of such applications made by the petitioner, respondent No. 2 called upon the petitioner to submit an application for grant of earned leave for the period of suspension. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 issued a warning to the petitioner vide letter, Annexure P-5, dated 22.1.1993 intimating him that he should submit an application for grant of earned leave for the period of suspension, failing which disciplinary action will be taken against him. When the petitioner did not comply with direction, respondent No. 2 issued notice, dated 23.4.1993 and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why a minor punishment specified in Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 be not. imposed upon him. The allegation levelled against the petitioner was that though he had been asked to submit an application for grant of earned leave in respect of the period of suspension, he had failed to submit such application. Petitioner submitted his reply vide letter, dated 9.5.1993. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order, dated 16.7.1993 and imposed a penalty of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner has questioned the legality of the impugned order of punishment on the ground of lack of jurisdiction by asserting that the punishment of stoppage of two grade increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment and such punishment could have been imposed on him only after full compliance of those provisions of 1987 Rules which contain the procedure for imposing a major punishment. The petitioner has also questioned the legality of the action taken by the respondents for compelling him to submit an application for grant of earned leave in respect of the period of suspension by asserting that no such authority vested with the respondent No. 2.