Abdul Basit vs State of Punjab

S.S. Nijjar, J.—The petitioner was appointed as Secretary, Market Committee, Samrala, District Ludhiana, in the year 1979-80. The conditions of service of the petitioner are governed by the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, as amended from time to time. The petitioner was served with show cause notice by the Secretary, Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board vide letter dated 30.9.1980. The petitioner submitted his reply. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a supplementary charge-sheet by the Secretary, State Agricultural Marketing Board, Punjab, on 31.10.1980. Thereafter, without holding any enquiry, the impugned order dated 13.5.1981 has been passed whereby two increments of the petitioner have been stopped with cumulative effect.

The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment. This punishment can only be imposed after complying with the provisions of Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules which provides for holding a regular departmental enquiry before parting the order of punishment. Admittedly, no departmental enquiry has been held. In the written statement filed by respondents No. 2 and 3 in para 2 it is stated that the petitioner was found negligent in performing his duties while posted at Market Committee, Samrala, as he failed to realise full market fee in respect of M/s. Shiv Kumar Ramesh Kumar for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78. He was given notice to show cause against proposed punishment under Rule 10 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. Considering his replies two increments with cumulative effect were stopped vide order dated 13.5.1981 (Annexure P. 1). The petitioner filed an appeal against the order dated Annexure P. 1. The same was also disposed of vide order dated 27.12.1982 (Annexure P.4).

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

It is a settled proposition of law that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty. The aforesaid legal proposition has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. The State of Punjab 1991(2) SCT 30 (SC) : 1991(1) RSJ 412. Considering the fact that the aforesaid order has been passed without holding any enquiry against the petitioner, the impugned orders Annexures P.1 and P.4 cannot be sustained.

Mr. Pathela has submitted that if the petition is to be allowed on the technical ground of non-compliance of Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, the respondent-Board, should be given liberty to conduct an enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. In normal circumstances, the request made by the learned Counsel could be accepted. However, in the present case, it is to be noticed that the order of punishment was passed on 13.5.1981. The petitioner has been deprived of financial benefit of the increased emoluments for a period of 20 years, on account of the fact that two increments have been stopped with cumulative effect. It would therefore not be in the interest of justice to permit the department to hold an enquiry at this stage. I am also of the considered opinion that non-compliance of Rule 8 cannot be termed as a technicality as suggested by Mr. Pathela. Imposition of major penalty without holding a departmental enquiry would make the order of punishment per se illegal. This has been so held in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill (supra). While considering the impact of the non-holding of departmental enquiry before imposing a punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, the Supreme Court has held that in such circumstances, imposition of the impugned penalty without enquiry is per se illegal. The aforesaid ratio of the Supreme Court is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

In view of the above, the petition is allowed, impugned orders Annexures P.1 and P.4 are hereby quashed.

The petitioner shall he entitled to all consequential benefits. No costs.

Petition allowed