B.D. Sahni vs State of Haryana

Amar Bir Singh Gill, J.—The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the order of punishment dated 26.3.1998, Annexure P-6, by which his two increments have been stopped with cumulative effect.

Brief facts, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 17.10.1995 vide Annexure P-1. He submitted his reply to the charge-sheet, vide Annexure P-2. Being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to hold a detailed inquiry. The Inquiry Officer in his report, Annexure P-3, exonerated the petitioner of the charges. The respondents, though agreeing with the finding of the Inquiry Officer, but issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 29.8.97, vide Annexure P-4, as to why punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect be not imposed upon him. The petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice, vide Annexure P-5. However, the respondents passed the impugned order, vide Annexure P-6 imposing a penalty of stoppage to two future increments with cumulative effect on the petitioner.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the action of the respondents is totally against the rules as in the show cause notice issued to him, vide Annexure P-4, the respondent-authorities have not given any reasons for taking contrary view to the report of the Inquiry Officer, Besides, alongwith the show cause notice, he was not apprised of the reasons for dis-agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer.

In the written statement filed by the respondents, the irregularities committed by the petitioner have been highlighted. Besides, it is averred that on receipt of the report of the Inquiry Officer, the Punishing Authority had to pass an order applying its own mind to the whole case and had to reach at its own independent conclusion uninfluenced by any other person. It is further stated in the reply that the acceptance of the proposals made by the subordinates in the office note was not sufficient.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is apparent from the facts disclosed above that the respondents while proceeding to pass the impugned order, Annexure P-6, have totally ignored the service rules applicable to the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has re-produced the proviso of Rule 7(6) of the Haryana Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 which reads as under :-

"Rule 7(6): After the enquiry against a Government employee has been completed, and after the punishing authority has arrived at a provisional conclusion in regard to the penalty to be imposed, the Government employee shall, if the penalty to be imposed is major penalty be supplied with a copy of the report of the enquiry authority and be called upon to show cause, within reasonable time, not ordinarily exceeding one month against the particular penalty proposed to be inflicted upon him. Any representation submitted by him in this behalf shall be taken into consideration before final orders are passed :

Provided that if the punishing authority disagrees with any part or whole of the findings, of the inquiring authority, the point or points of such disagreement, together with a brief statement of the ground thereof, shall also be supplied to the Government employee."

A perusal of the aforesaid proviso to the rule, reproduced above, shows that the said proviso is mandatory in application and the punishing authority is required to supply to the delinquent employee the brief Slate of ground of disagreement with the report of the Inquiry Officer alongwith the show cause notice. Admittedly, there is no such compliance of this rule in the present case. The requirement of compliance of the said rule in the case of the petitioner is made clear in view of the contents of the show cause notice, Annexure P-4, issued to the petitioner, the contents whereof are as follows:

Haryana Government

Irrigation Department

No. 6/67/96-31E Dated : 29.8.97. The Inquiry Officer appointed to enquire into the charges levelled against you vide order dated 14.2.97 issued vide Govt. Endst. No. 6/67/96-3IE dated 18.2.97 has submitted his report. A copy of the report is enclosed for your information.

On carefull consideration of the report, Governor of Haryana fully agrees with the conclusion arrived by the Inquiry Officer in report of the charges levelled against you. The Governor of Haryana is provisionally of the opinion that the punishment of stoppage of two increments with future effect be imposed upon you. Before he takes that action, he desires to give you an opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken. Any representation which you may like to make in that connection will be considered before the proposed action is taken. Such representation, if any, should be made in writing and submitted to Government so as to reach not later than 15 days from the receipt of this communication by you."

In the show cause notice, re-produced above, it is clearly mentioned that the punishing authority fully agrees with the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer in his report on the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer, in his report, Annexure P-3, totally absolved of the charges framed against the petitioner. The show cause notice, Annexure P-4, which does not disclose the reasons of disagreement with the report of the Inquiry Officer, is invalid on the face of it being a non-speaking one. Besides, it is against the mandate of proviso to rule 7(6) of the said Service Rules applicable to the case of the petitioner.

Consequently, the impugned order, Annexure P-9, stands vitiated. This petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order, Annexure P-9, is quashed. However, there is no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.