Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 March, 2022
CWP-13050-2019 and other connected case 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(224) CWP-13050-2019
Date of Decision : March 22, 2022
Satpal .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
(224-A) CWP-14632-2019
Inderjeet Singh .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate, for the petitioner
(in both petitions).
Mr. Kannan Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
By this common order, two writ petitions, the details of which
have been given in the heading of the order, are being decided as the
question of law in these petitions, is the same.
1 of 4
Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that in the present
case, the imposition of penalty was on the basis of the proposal and
comments given by the Punjab Public Service Commission and the said
proposal and comments were taken into consideration by the punishing
authority without affording the petitioner an opportunity to give reply on the
said proposal and comments of the Punjab Public Service Commission,
which vitiate the punishment imposed. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the same question of law has already been considered by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court while passing order in CWP No.21052 of
2017 and held that any comments received from the Punjab Public Service
Commission, has to be afforded to the delinquent employee before passing
an order of punishment so as to comply with the rules of natural justice and
the challenge to the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court has
already been rejected by the Division Bench while passing order in LPA
No.383 of 2019 titled as State of Punjab and others versus G.S. Sidhu
decided on 20.02.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits
that the present case is squarely covered by the decision of the G.S. Sidhu's
case (supra).
Learned State counsel submits that the order of punishment was
passed keeping in view the recommendation of the Punjab Public Service
Commission but, he has not been able to rebut the claim of the petitioners
that the settled principle of law settled by the Division Bench in G.S.
Sidhu's case (supra), cover the case of the petitioners in their favour as no
differentiating fact has been pointed out to support the arguments.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
2 of 4
It is undisputed fact that the recommendation of the Punjab
Public Service Commission wherein, the quantum of punishment was
proposed along with the comments for the said proposal were never put to
the petitioners before the same were accepted by the punishing authorities.
Even the Punjab Public Service Commission never asked the petitioners to
submit their comments before proposing the punishment. That being so,
imposing punishment by the disciplinary authority by placing reliance upon
the recommendation of the Punjab Public Service Commission, has clearly
violated the rules of natural justice.
The Division Bench in G.S. Sidhu's case (supra), has held as
under:-
"12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant further
could not dispute the factual position that neither the Punjab
Public Service Commission granted any opportunity of hearing
to the respondent herein nor the State Government granted any
opportunity of hearing with regard to the approval received
from the Punjab Public Service Commission for dismissal. The
fact being undisputed again is in violation of the principles of
natural justice as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
S.N.Narula v. Union of India and others 2011 SCC 591, relied
upon by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment.
Thus the learned Single Judge rightly set aside the order on the
ground that the impugned dismissal order was passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice."
In the present case, in view of the facts and circumstances
noticed hereinbefore, the case of the petitioners is covered in their favour
keeping in view the finding recorded by Division Bench in G.S. Sidhu's
case (supra) in paragraph 12. That being so, the impugned order of
3 of 4
punishment dated 19/23.05.2016 (Annexure P-9) cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law.
Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that impugned order Annexure P-9 be treated as withdrawn with
liberty to pass a fresh order after complying with the rules of natural justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the
statement of the learned State counsel, no further grievance of the
petitioners exists as the proposal of the State counsel is acceptable to the
petitioners and the present petition may kindly be disposed of as not pressed
any further.
Ordered accordingly.
It is made clear that in case, the petitioners are aggrieved
against any order to be passed afresh by the respondents, they can avail
their remedy available to them in accordance with law.
The deductions, which have been made from the pensions of
the petitioners, be refunded to the petitioners within a period of two months
of the receipt of copy of this order.
March 22, 2022 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
4 of 4
