Randhir Singh vs Haryana State Electricity Board

M.M. Kumar, J.—This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenges the orders Annexures P-4, P-6, P-10, P-15, P-20, P-24, P-27 and P-29 inflicting various punishments on the petitioner, which in service jurisprudence are known as "minor punishments".

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the order Annexure P-4, P-6, P-10 and P-20 cannot be sustained because these orders have been passed after issuance of charge-sheets under Regulation 7 of the Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulation, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "regulation").

A Full Bench of this Court has considered the question as to whether after issuance of charge-sheet under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1987 for inflicting of major penalty, the employer is entitled to accept the explanation furnished by way of reply by the delinquent officer and impose a minor penalty without holding any inquiry. It has been held by the Full Bench that after a charge-sheet has been issued to delinquent officer for holding departmental inquiry contemplating imposition of major penalty, then no short-cut method is permissible even for imposing of minor penalty. It is not disputed that the respondent-Board has issued charge-sheet to the petitioner for imposition of major penalty and without holding an inquiry accepted his explanation for imposing minor penalty. The orders Annexure P-4, P-6, P-10 and P-20 have been passed inflicting minor penalty. Therefore, it is obvious that such a course is not permissible in law as ruled by the Full Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 3661 of 1999 (Dr. K.G. Tiwari, SDO, Animal Husbandry (Retd.) v. State of Haryana and Ors.) decided on 20th December, 2001. Therefore, these impugned orders are liable to be quashed.

Similarly, the orders Annexures P-15 and P-24 have been challenged on the ground that the orders do not reflect any application of mind and also lack reasons. It is well settled that under Regulation 4, even minor punishment cannot be imposed unless there are good and sufficient reasons. Reasons are sine qua non for every quasi judicial order as they provide link between the guilt of the delinquent officer as well as the conclusion reached by the punishing authority. This aspect is also covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in x x x x x C.W.P. No. 3710 of 1994 titled Digambar Singh v. Haryana State Electricity Board and Anr. decided on 3.8.1994. Therefore, these two orders are also liable to be quashed on that ground.

For the reasons recorded above, orders Annexure P-4, P-6, P-10, P-20, P-15 and P-24 are quashed. However, it shall be open to the respondent-Board to take a decision afresh by holding inquiry in respect of the cases where charge-sheets under Regulation 7 have been issued or by passing fresh order in case where show-cause notices under Regulation 8 for imposing minor penalties have been served on the delinquent officer. Therefore, the question of consequential relief may also be considered by the Board in case no punishment is imposed on the petitioner. Needless to say that if the allegations levelled in the charge-sheets are found to be baseless, then the Annual Confidential Reports or consequences flowing therefrom shall be reviewed and re-considered.

The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.