Punjab State Electricity Board vs Avtar Singh and Another

R.L. Anand, J.—I am disposing of this appeal after going through the impugned judgments of the Courts below and after going through the records of this case.

The pleadings of the parties can be summarised in the following manner. One Avtar Singh son of Shri Gurbachan Singh, filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 19.9.1975, passed by the Chief Engineer/North, Punjab State Electricity Board, vide which two annual increments with cumulative effect, were stopped, is wrong, illegal, void, un-constitutional, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.

The case set-up by the plaintiff was that he joined the service of the Board on 25.10.1960 and refused to vow to illegal demands and acts of defendant No. 1. He was charge-sheeted on 21.5.1973 vide Memo No.C-595. According to the plaintiff, the order dated 19.9.1975 is illegal on the ground that the reply filed by him to the charge-sheet has not been considered by the punishing authority. The plaintiff further alleged that the order was not a speaking one and he has not been afforded any opportunity to make a representation. No inquiry has been held into the alleged charges and no witness has been examined. No material has been furnished to him on which the punishment was imposed. The show-cause notice is bad and reply to the show case notice has also not been considered.

Notice of the suit was given to the defendant-Board which contested the suit on the grounds; that the plaintiff had no cause of action; that he had no locus standi to bring the suit; that the suit is not maintainable against defendant No.2; that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit was not properly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction.

On merits, it was stated by the defendant-Board that the impugned order is perfectly legal.

The above small pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues:-

Whether the order dated 19.9.1975 is wrong, illegal and void? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable against the defendant No.2? OPD

Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

Relief.

The parties led evidence in support of their case and finally the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court.

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Judge, Jalandhar, who for the reasons given in para No.3 of the judgment, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff and granted the declaration and in this manner, the Board has come in the present appeal.

Para No.3 of the judgment of the District Judge, can be quoted as follows:-

"The learned counsel for the appellant argued that stoppage of increments was a major penalty and referred to the view in C. Veera Chowdajah v. State of Mysore and Anr., 1973 All India Service Reports 296. There it was held that withholding of three increments amounts to major penalty. I cannot say as to what were the rules in force in the State of Mysore but as far as the plaintiff is concerned he is governed by the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees Punishment and Appeal Regulations 1971. In Regulation (5) it is clearly mentioned that withholding of increments of pay was a minor penalty. It was only the reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of the pay that would amount to a major penalty. The procedure for imposing these penalties was contained in Regulation 10. The employee had to be informed of the proposal giving him a reasonable opportunity to make representation. The representation had to be considered. Then the finding had to be recorded to pass appropriate orders. This is also the rule of natural justice. The learned Counsel argued that Ex.P.3 is the final order passed in this case and that does not show that the representation made by the plaintiff was taken into consideration and what weighed with the Punishing Authority to pass the impugned order. The learned counsel for the Board argued that comments of various authorities were obtained on the representation of the plaintiff and then after seeing this record the Punishing Authority recorded the order. There can be no doubt that before any order is passed by the Punishing Authority, the material required for that purpose should be placed and duly considered and this fact should be apparent from the order itself. In other words, the record must show that the Punishing Authority was satisfied after considering the representation that a particular order should be passed. The Punishing Authority has not appeared in the witness box nor his any order been placed on the file which should show that the Punishing Authority had considered the representation of the plaintiff and then for any particular reason, passed the order imposing the penalty. The only order in this respect is copy of Ex. P.3. This clearly does not show that any representation made by the plaintiff was taken into consideration and why this particular order was passed. If the order is read as it is it would rather show that no representation of the plaintiff was brought to the notice of the Punishing Authority. The order clearly goes against the principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. It is also against the rules referred to above which provide that representation of any employee must be considered before passing the order. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order impugned is invalid and illegal. It has to be set aside. The learned Subordinate Judge does not appear to have taken this aspect of the case into consideration."

The above para would show that the learned District Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff mainly on the ground that the principles of natural justice have not been complied with. However, it has clearly been held that withholding of increments of pay was a minor penalty as per Regulation (5) of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees Punishment and Appeals Regulations, 1971. The first appellate Court also held that before stopping the increments with cumulative effect, which is a minor punishment, as per rule, the employee had to be informed of the proposal giving him a reasonable opportunity to make representation and after reconsidering his representation the competent authority had the right to impose the penalty. In this light, it is to be seen that before passing the order, Annexure P-3, whether the plaintiff has been afforded the opportunity and if so whether that has been taken note of by the punishing authority or not before passing of the impugned order. Plaintiff appeared as his own witness before the trial Court. He admitted that he replied to the charge-sheet and his reply is Ex.P.2. DW-3 also stated before the trial Court that charge-sheet was issued to the plaintiff and his reply was considered by the XEN and S.D.O. When the plaintiff himself has admitted that he filed the reply to the charge-sheet what else more could be expected from him. This tantamount to the compliance of the principles of natural justice. Ex.P.1 further shows that plaintiff was afforded the opportunity to see the official record for the purpose of preparing his written statement. Thus, no prejudice has been caused to the plaintiff. The plaintiff admitted that he was allowed to see the relevant record. When the principles of natural justice have been complied with, no further requirement of the law is necessary in a case of minor punishment. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that-the learned District Judge, Jalandhar, clearly fell error by holding that the plaintiff was not afforded the opportunity to meet the case.

I have gone through the inquiry file which clearly suggests that before passing the impugned order dated 19.9.1975, the explanation furnished by the plaintiff was taken note of and thereafter, order Annexure P-3, was passed vide which the two annual increments of Shri Avtar Singh, plaintiff, were stopped with future effect on account of the charges levelled in the charge-sheet No.C-595 dated 21.9.1973 having been proved against him. In this view of the matter, I allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court and restore the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which, has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. There shall be no order as to costs.