Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh Sidhu vs State Of Punjab And Others on 20 December, 2023
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164057
215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
2023:PHHC:164057
CWP-2823-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.12.2023
Gurpreet Singh Sidhu ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Present Mr. Suneet Singh Deol, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishnav Gandhi, DAG, Punjab.
***
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. The petitioner was charge sheeted under Rule 8 of the Punjab
Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, for major penalty.
2. The petitioner submitted a reply and thereafter the disciplinary
authority obtained comments from the Director, Agriculture and Farmers
Welfare Department, Punjab and relying upon such comments, the
Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, proceeded to pass an
order holding the petitioner guilty for not filing reply after a delay of three
years.
3. The submissions of the petitioner and the reply of the Director,
Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Punjab, were taken into
consideration and a punishment of stopping his two annual grade increments
was passed with further warning to perform his duties responsibly in the
future.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164057
2023:PHHC:164057 [2] CWP-2823-2022 (O&M)
4. The order, prima-facie, appears to be an order passed for minor
penalty imposing stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative
effect but the order does not mention whether increments have been stopped
with cumulative or without cumulative effect.
5. Keeping in view the fact that the charge sheet was issued for
major penalty and no Enquiry Officer was appointed nor inquiry report was
made available and further the action was taken based on the report of the
Director, Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department, Punjab and the reply
filed by the petitioner to the charge sheet, this Court is of the firm view that
the order of punishment imposing stoppage of two grade increments was
without cumulative effect as procedure for minor penalty was adopted.
6. In view thereof, no interference is warranted as the petitioner has
been given fair opportunity of being personally heard. Even the comments of
the Director, Agriculture and Farmers Department, Punjab, were made
available to the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case is made
out against the petitioner as the reply filed by the petitioner clearly reflects
that the charges were not made out against him. However, the said aspect
cannot be examined while examining the punishment order in writ
jurisdiction as this Court does not sit in appeal. The only aspect which this
Court would examine is whether the procedure was followed and principles
of natural justice were given due adherence. In the present case, even
opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner. Therefore,
this Court would not substitute its opinion to that of the disciplinary
authority. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164057
2023:PHHC:164057 [3] CWP-2823-2022 (O&M)
the case of Union of India vs. Subrata Nath 2023 (1) SLJ 97, this Court does
not deem it appropriate to interfere with the punishment order. However, the
punishment shall be only treated as a minor punishment. The two annual
grade increments which have been stopped, would be without cumulative
effect. The effect of stopping such increments would therefore be in
operation from 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 alone.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is partly allowed.
9. All pending misc. application(s) also stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
JUDGE
20.12.2023
rajesh
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164057
3 of 3
