Daya ram vs. state of haryana:

You can browse www.indiankanoon.org for judgements. Or you can see the courts websites.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH


                         RSA No. 3423 of 2010
                         Date of decision: February 5, 2013

Daya Ram
                                                        ...Appellant
                               Versus
State of Haryana and others
                                                        ...Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL


Present:    Mr. JS Manipur, Advocate,
            for the appellant.

            Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate,
            for the respondents.

A.N. JINDAL, J. (Oral)

The plaintiff/appellant was working as Lineman. In the year 1992, he was found negligent in his official duties, as he ignored the advise of his superior for closing the 'GO' switch without any instructions, due to which one person had died and his death was to be compensated by the respondents. Due to his act of negligence, he was suspended and a case under Section 304-A IPC was registered against him. Ultimately, vide order dated 22.9.1992, his three increments with future effect were stopped. The plaintiff had challenged this order stating that the said order being major penalty was in violation of the procedure, as such, the same was liable to be quashed.

Having failed to convince about his ignorance before both the courts, he has come in this regular second appeal.

Heard.

The substantial question of law arising for determination in the present case is, "whether the order dated 22.9.1992 having been passed by defendant No.4/respondent was illegal and in violation of the procedure set down in the Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations 1990 (for short, 'the Regulations 1990')."

Admittedly, the appellant was a regular employee of the Haryana State Electricity Board. He was acquitted of the charge under Section 304-A IPC by the criminal court. There were no other allegations of negligence except the fact that he had ignored the advise of his superiors to close the GO switch without any instructions. As a result of which one person had died. The acquittal of the plaintiff was because the respondent- Board could not lead sufficient evidence before criminal court for substantiating the charge. It is also not in dispute that Rule 4 (A) (iii) of the Regulations of 1990, describes that the stoppage of an increment without cumulative effect as a minor penalty and it also cannot be disputed that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is a major penalty.

A similar view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of Food Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. A. Prahalada Rao & Anr. and another decision of this Court rendered in the case of Pankaj Bhushan Vs. Managing Director DBVHNL & Ors., RSA No. 1741 of 2007 decided on 24.4.2008. It was also observed in the case of Randhir Singh Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board 2003 (3) RSJ 606 that the respondents could not bye-pass the procedure for holding regular inquiry even if the Department had proposed to impose a minor penalty, after issuing charge sheet for imposing major penalty. Similar observations were made in K.G. Tiwari Vs. State of Haryana 2002 (3) RSJ 296.

It has also not been disputed that imputation of charges were framed and no regular inquiry was held but only a show cause notice was issued after receiving the reply from the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant was imposed this major penalty, which is apparently against the principles of natural justice which apparently is in violation of Rule 4 (A) (iii) of the Regulations of 1990, which is re-produced as under:-

"4. PENALITIES:

The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, and as hereinafter provided, be inflicted on an employee.

A-MINOR PENALITIES:

i) Warning with a copy to be placed in the personal/ (character roll) file;

ii) Censure;

iii) Withholding/stoppage of increments of pay with or without cumulative effect (The word "with cumulative effect" deleted vide notification No. 170 dated 23.12.93)

iv) Withholding of promotion for a specific period.

v) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss, caused by negligence or breach of orders of the aboard or Central Government or a State Government or to a Company Association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not,which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by Government or to a local authority set-up by an Act or Parliament or of the Legislature of a State, during discharge of official duty. B-MAJOR PENALITIES:

V-a) "Withholding/stoppage of increment of pay with cumulative effect" (added vide notification No. 170 dated 23.12.1993).

vi) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the employee will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of post-poning the future increments of his pay.

vii) Reduction to a lower scale of pay or grade, post or service, which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the employee to the time scale of pay or grade or post or service, from which he was reduced with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or post or service from which the employee was reduced and seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade or post or service;

viii) Compulsory retirement;

ix) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Board;

x) Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Board/State Govt. State Govt. Undertakings."

Consequently, the judgment passed by the both the courts below suffer from grave illegality, warranting interference by this Court.

Resultantly, this appeal is accepted, impugned judgments are set aside and the suit of the appellant is decreed. He would be entitled to all consequential benefits. The parties are to bear their own costs.

February 5, 2013                                (A.N. JINDAL)
prem                                                  JUDGE

The facts of the case are very limited in your question please eleborate more to find our exact citation.