Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jai Singh (Deceased) Through His Lrs And ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 2 April, 2024

Author: G.S. Sandhawalia

Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia

                              Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043599-DB



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH
                                 Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:043599-DB

(104)                                          LPA-917-2022 (O&M)
                                               Decided on : 02.04.2024

Jai Singh (Deceased) through his L.Rs. and others
                                                            ......Appellant(s)

                                    Versus
State of Haryana and others
                                                           ......Respondent(s)


CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
        ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI


Present:-   Mr. Salil Dev Singh Bali, Advocate for the appellants.

                 *****

G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

CM-2197-LPA-2022

Application for condonation of delay of 39 days in filing the

appeal, is allowed, in view of the averments made in the application, duly

supported by affidavit. Delay of 39 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM stands disposed of.

LPA-917-2022 (O&M)

Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is sought of

the judgment dated 06.097.2022 of the learned Single Judge passed in

CWP-7451-2001 'Jai Singh (deceased) through L.Rs. Vs. State of

Haryana and others', wherein challenge was raised to the order dated

30.03.1999 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Director Local Bodies, Haryana,

whereby the deceased employee was awarded the punishment of reduction

in rank from Fire Station Officer to Sub Fire Officer. Vide the said order

the Learned Single Judge has upheld order dated 30.03.1999 (Annexure P-

7) and also did not interfere in the appellate order dated 17.02.2000

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043599-DB

LPA-917-2022 (O&M)

(Annexure P-9), wherein the Financial Commissioner & Secretary to

Government of Haryana, Local Bodies Department had declined to

interfere in the order passed and it was noticed that it was a serious issue

and show cause notice had been issued for removal of service, but in the

final order lenient view had been taken for reduction in rank.

2. The Learned Single Judge noticed that the allegations on the

basis of which the punishment had been imposed were on account of the

charge-sheet dated 12.10.1999 under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services

(Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1987. The incident pertained to a fire

incident which had taken place on 24.05.1995 in the premises of M/s

Krishna Fireworks, Rohtak, wherein as many as 25 people died, which had

led to the charge-sheet being served upon the appellant. It was noticed

that a inquiry had been conducted and on the basis of the allegations

having been proved, the said punishment order had been passed. The

Government employee having expired during the pendency of the writ

petition and the petition being pursued by the legal representatives was

kept in mind, to come to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the Court to

interfere with the punishment awarded by the authorities was limited. In

the absence of any procedure being violated during the departmental

proceedings and due opportunity having been granted to the employee, it

is not for the Court to interfere. The Learned Single Judge also noticed

that it could not be pointed out that the procedure followed was wrong in

any manner and the charge-sheet was duly served and after giving due

opportunity of defending himself to the employee, the punishment order

had been passed and there was no proper care to storage of fireworks.

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043599-DB

LPA-917-2022 (O&M)

3. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently submitted that the

permission as such regarding the setting up of the cracker unit had been

approved by the Deputy Commissioner at an earlier point of time and

therefore, an objection had been raised when the charge-sheet had been

issued, since the said officer was the Director, Local Bodies. In such

circumstances, the employee had objected as such when the departmental

action had been initiated against him.

4. We have perused the paper-book and find that vide

communication dated 25.06.1998 (Annexure P-5) the said objection had

been raised. A perusal of the paper-book further goes on to show that the

inquiry proceedings had already been conducted on 04.03.1998

(Annexure P-3) by an Executive Engineer, who had been appointed on

22.04.1997 in pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 12.10.1995 against the

deceased employee. The sum and substance of the charges framed on the

departmental side were as under:-

"1. That regarding in the explosion accrued (sic. occurred) on 24.5.95 at M/S Krishna Fire Works Rohtak in which 25 persons were killed. The report of the same should have been given on telephone in terms of the directions issued vide memo No. FACT-93/7407-750 dated 11.2.93 but you have not done so.

2. That while issuing no objection certificate regarding fire safety to M/S Krishna Fire Works Rohtak you have committed major lapses because as per report of the enquiry officer you have told that a brigade was not able to enter into the premises of the fire the said fireworks. Similarly the presence of fire fighting equipment and extinguisher has not been assured in the said fire works.

3. That you do not have full control on the staff. For instance on 24.5.95 at the site of fire explosion the entire staff was without dress.

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043599-DB

LPA-917-2022 (O&M)

The above said irregularities committed by Shri Jai Singh Fire Station Officer are serious for which he has liable for disciplinary action."

5. In pursuance of the said proceedings, the Inquiry Officer

came to the conclusion that the information was never sent immediately to

the Directorate regarding the fire incident and the Headquarter should have

immediately been informed for assessing the gravity of the incident and to

make necessary arrangements and to keep the State Government informed.

The explanation as such to evade from his duty by stating that it was the

responsibility of the fireman on duty to inform the Directorate was not

accepted. Accordingly, charge No.1 was held to be proved on the ground

that it was responsibility of the employee to inform the Directorate and he

should have issued necessary instructions to the fireman on duty or should

have requested the E.O, M.C., Rohtak to inform Directorate as per the

concerned instructions. Similarly, the factum of NOC being issued and the

fire equipments which were necessary to be installed in the factory were

taken into consideration under 2nd charge. It was noticed that the factory

was adjacent to a populated area along a very busy road and within

municipal limits and safety aspects had to be kept in mind and the report

as such should have pointed out the said aspects after inspecting the site.

The site plan attested by him did not appear to be according to scale and as

per situation at site. It was noticed that there were inadequate provisions

of means of fire fighting and old rusty fire extinguishers had been

provided for the godowns and no fire fighting provision for the explosives

stored in the open had been made and there was enough water for the

buckets to control such a situation. Thus, the factory had posed serious

threat to the life of workers and the residents and passerby of the adjacent

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043599-DB

LPA-917-2022 (O&M)

areas of the factory and the 2nd charge was held to be proved. Similarly,

the third charge also partly proved against the employee that he did not

have control over the fire staff, as the staff was not wearing uniforms at the

time of fire incident.

6. Therefore, on all accounts the charges had been proved,

which eventually led to the order and, accordingly, led to the show cause

notice being issued, which was then objected on the ground that the

Director, Local Bodies as such was the same officer, who was also the

Deputy Commissioner. Apparently, when the order was passed, a separate

Director had considered the issue and kept in mind the inquiry report. It

was also noticed that the said Director had been transferred on 30.10.1998

and in such circumstances as noticed earlier also, though initially the

notice as such was for termination of services, the punishment of reduction

to lower post was done from the Fire Station Officer to Sub Fire Officer.

7. In appeal also the aspect as discussed above was duly

considered. It was also noticed that cross-examination of departmental

witnesses had been done and the Inquiry Officer had been appointed and at

that time no such objection had been raised and nothing could be proved

that the Inquiry Officer was impartial in any manner. In such

circumstances, the order was upheld by noticing that lenient view had

already been taken.

8. A perusal of the inquiry report would go on to show that a

large number of Government officials were examined including the Fire

Station Officers of Bahadurgarh and Sonipat, since they had also been

asked to come from adjoining stations to extinguish the fire at fireworks

factory.

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043599-DB

LPA-917-2022 (O&M)

9. The power of judicial review is limited as has been laid down

by the Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India

and others, (1995) SCC (6) 749 wherein the Apex Court has held that the

interference by the Writ Court is permissible when the punishment is

found shockingly disproportionate and if the procedure followed is correct,

it is not for the Court to substitute the punishment order. Relevant portion

of the judgment reads as under:

"18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. It the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases. Impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."

10. The employee having been given adequate opportunity before

imposing the punishment, now cannot turn around and try to fix the blame

as such on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner had approved the

preliminary inquiry report and subsequently charge-sheet was issued by

the same officer. The punishment is based on the inquiry conducted by the

Executive Engineer and then Director Local Bodies had applied her mind

by imposing the punishment as noticed above, who was an independent

officer not connected with the grant of the NOC. In such circumstances,

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043599-DB

LPA-917-2022 (O&M)

the argument which has been raised by counsel for the appellant is not