SATPAL SINGH DAHIYA Vs. HUDA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who is serving as an Executive Engineer under the Haryana Urban Development Authority has filed the instant petition impugning the order dated 27.06.2011 (Annexure P-4) in terms of which he has been awarded the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. Challenge is also to the order dated 27.12.2011/13.01.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of punishment.

(2.) Pleadings on record would indicate that petitioner was appointed as Sub Divisional Engineer on 20.09.1990 and promoted as Executive Engineer on 17.07.2007. On 05.12.2007 petitioner was served a charge-sheet under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 for imposition of a major penalty. The acts of omission and commission alleged against the petitioner were in relation to his tenure on the post of Sub Divisional Engineer and while serving in the office of Estate Office, HUDA, Gurgaon. Petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and thereafter an Inquiry Officer was appointed. Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 31.12.2008 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner and he was granted opportunity to file objections against the same. Having considered the representation filed by the petitioner against the findings of the Inquiry Officer, petitioner was issued a show cause notice contemplating the imposition of penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner submitted his response to the show cause notice. The Punishing Authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 27.06.2011. Petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the Vice Chairman, HUDA and the same has been declined vide order dated 27.12.2011/13.01.2012 (Annexure P-6). It is against such brief factual backdrop that the instant writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the punishment imposed upon the petitioner on the solitary ground of discrimination and quantum of punishment. In furtherance of such submission, it is submitted that the charge levelled against the petitioner was primarily in relation to having not pointed out a building violation i.e. of basement having been constructed under the corridor of Booth Nos.22-B and 23, Jail Road, Gurgaon. It is submitted that identical charge was also levelled against one Harjit Singh, Junior Engineer and common inquiry proceedings were held. The charges were proved against both i.e. the petitioner as well as Harjit Singh, Junior Engineer. Insofar as the Junior Engineer is concerned, he was awarded the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect by the Punishing Authority dated 17.03.2010. However, the statutory appeal preferred by Harjit Singh, Junior Engineer has been partly accepted and the punishment stands reduced to stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. Precise submission raised is that the employee who actually inspected the site of the booths in question i.e. Harjit Singh, Junior Engineer has been finally awarded the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and the petitioner who had only forwarded the said report to the higher authorities has also been awarded the same punishment and the action as such is discriminatory.