SUBHASH CHUGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Sub Inspector in the Transport Department, was awarded the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect vide order dated October 28, 1993. He filed an appeal. It has been rejected by the appellate authority vide its order dated December 9,1994. Aggrieved by these orders, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition

(2.) Mr. Gurdev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the orders on three grounds. Firstly, it has been contended that while issuing the show cause notice, the disciplinary authority had pre-judged the matter and as such, the impugned order of penalty is vitiated. Secondly, the counsel has submitted that the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are not speaking orders. Lastly, the validity of Rule 7(6) of the Haryana Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 has been challenged.

(3.) As for the first contention, the position appears to be that the Enquiry Officer had virtually exonerated the petitioner of all the three charges. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the conclusions recorded by the Enquiry Officer and found that he had adopted a very soft attitude toward the delinquent official. Accordingly, it recorded its reasons. It further came to a tentative conclusion tiiat the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect should be imposed. It gave a show cause notice to the petitioner. Alongwith the show cause notice, a copy of the enquiry report was also furnished to the petitioner. In this notice, it was inter alia mentioned tiiat on a perusal of the record, the disciplinary autiiority was provisionally of the view that the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect should be imposed. Formation of such a tentative view does not amount to pre-judging the matter. If such a tentative view is not expressed, it may not be possible for the delinquent official to show cause effectively. The action of the authority was in conformity with law. We are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel.