SURINDER KUMAR MITTAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, while working as District Employment Officer at Kaithal was served with a charge sheet dated 25.1.1986, Anhexure P-1. Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The punishing authority i.e. the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Labour and Employment, after considering the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer imposed a penalty of stoppage of four increments on the petitioner, with cumulative effect by order dated 11.6.1993, Annexure P-2. According to the petitioner, the enquiry report submitted by Mr. S.S. Chadha, Enquiry Officer on the basis of which the penalty of stoppage of increments was imposed, had been ordered to be treated as cancelled and instead a new Enquiry Officer was appointed by order dated 15.4.1991, Annexure P-3. The new Enquiry Officer did not initiate any enquiry proceedings what to talk of submitting the enquiry report. Surprisingly, the punishing authority passed another order dated 18.12.1994, Annexure P-4 whereby it was ordered that the petitioner shall be allowed 50% of the emoluments which is equivalent to the amount of subsistence allowance, already drawn by him during suspension period from 14.10.1985 to 2.1.1986. The petitioner thereafter, made three representations, Annexure P-5, P-6 and P-7. The representations were considered and were dismissed by the authorities by order Annexure P-8. Hence this petition.

(2.) In response to notice of motion, respondents have put in appearance and have filed written statement. Facts as stated above are admitted in the written statement. It was specifically admitted that copy of enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner nor was any show cause notice issued before passing the impugned orders as the findings of the Enquiry Officer revealed the commission of procedural lapses which were self evident in support of misconduct of the petitioner.

(3.) During the course of the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order Annexure P-2 imposing a penalty of stoppage of four increments on the petitioner was passed without supplying a copy of the enquiry report and issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner. Counsel submitted that before an order of penalty is passed it is incumbent upon the punishing authority to supply a copy of enquiry report along with the show cause notice. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents conceded that it is indeed so.