Gurmukh Singh vs State of Punjab and Another

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, learned D.A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondents. A complete copy of the writ paper book has been handed over to her.

In view of the order that I propose to pass, there would be no requirement for calling for a reply on behalf of the State.

The petitioner, who is serving as Conductor with the Punjab Roadways, Hoshiarpur was imposed the penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 4.6.2010 passed by the Director, State Transport, Punjab (Annexure P-3). Such order of penalty was passed upon culmination of regular departmental proceedings, wherein the charge levelled against the petitioner was to the following effect:-

That you were assigned the duty of ledger writing and log book writer in the booking branch. On dated 8.8.2007, at the time of entering your cash in the log book, you made an entry of Rs. 3637/- which was Rs. 300/- in excess, which were deposited by Sh. Jagjit Singh Conductor No. 20 and thereafter you strike off upon the cash amount of Rs. 3637/- and made it Rs. 3937/- and he strike off, at his own, the extra amount of Rs. 300/- without taking approval from the Senior Authority and without bringing the same to the notice to the any senior official. In this way, by tampering with the Government record and striking off/overwriting the same, at your own, and without bringing the same to the notice to any Senior Official, have made yourself liable for punishment by bestowing in your duty.

It would be pertinent to notice that identical charge was also levelled against two other officials namely Karnail Singh and Jagjit Singh. In the inquiry report that had been furnished by the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner along with Karnail Singh and Jagjit Singh had been found guilty. The inquiry report for all the three delinquents including the petitioner was common. However, vide order dated 12.2.2009 (Annexure P-2) the Director, State Transport, Punjab did not agree with the report of the Inquiry Officer in so far as Karnail Singh, Conductor No. 51, Punjab Roadways, Hoshiarpur was concerned and as such he was exonerated.

The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal against the order of penalty imposed upon him and a copy of the appeal dated 23.6.2010 has been placed on record at Annexure P-4. A perusal of the same would reveal that apart from other grounds the plea of discrimination and arbitrary action was specifically raised by stating that the co-delinquent namely Karnail Singh, who had been found guilty in the same very inquiry report, had been exonerated, whereas the petitioner has been imposed the major penalty of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect.

Such statutory appeal stands rejected by the Secretary, Govt. of Punjab, Transport Department vide order dated 14.10.2010 (Annexure P-5). A perusal of such appellate order shows that comments were sought from the department as regards the submissions raised in the appeal. The ground of discrimination and Karnail Singh, Conductor having been imposed no penalty inspite of finding of guilt having been recorded by the Inquiry Officer, was specifically noticed.

The operative part of the order passed by the Appellate Authority reads in the following terms:-

In the present case, I have intensively considered the file of departmental inquiry and remarks which were given by department. At the time of personal hearing, the appellant was heard in detail. The appellant, at the time of hearing could not produce any document or proof from which it may be proved that all these proceedings have not been conducted as per rules or any type of provocation has been done with him. From the perusal of the file, it was found that the appellant was given full opportunity to put forward his defence in which he failed completely.

After considering the above circumstances, I have arrived at the conclusion that there is no force in the present appeal, so, I order dismissal of the present appeal.

The present petition has been filed impugning the order dated 4.6.2010 (Annexure P-3) passed by the punishing authority as also the order passed in appeal dated 14.10.2010 (Annexure P-5).

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the validity of the order passed by the punishing authority need not be gone into and examined, at this stage. I take this view for the reason that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is totally cryptic and bereft of any reasoning. The specific submissions and grounds raised in the appeal dated 23.6.2010 (Annexure P-4), even though, adverted to but have not been dealt with. It is by now well settled that even where an affirmative order is to be passed by the Appellate Authority, reasons have to be assigned, be it in brief. The impugned order dated 14.10.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority shows a complete non-application of mind.

For the reasons recorded above, the present writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated 14.10.2010 (Annexure P-5) is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Secretary, Govt. of Punjab, Transport Department to consider the appeal dated 23.6.2010 filed by the petitioner against the order of penalty and to take a decision afresh, strictly in accordance with law and by passing a speaking order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Petition allowed in the aforesaid terms.