Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd & ... vs D.S. Hooda on 6 August, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100648
RSA-3280-2015 (O & M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
226 RSA-3280-2015 (O & M)
Date of decision:06.08.2024
DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD & ORS
...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
D.S. HOODA ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate
for the appellants.
None for the respondent.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL J.
1. Defendants-appellants are in second appeal before this Court
challenging the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court.
2. Pleaded case of the plaintiff-respondent is that he retired from
the post of Executive Engineer on 28.02.2011. During his service tenure,
he was served with a charge-sheet dated 05.04.2006, Ex.PW1/A, under
Regulation 7 of the H.S.E.B. Employees (Punishment and Appeal)
Regulations, 1990 (for short "the Regulations") for imposition of a major
penalty. He submitted a reply to the charge-sheet, but without following
the procedure laid down under the Regulations, punishment of recovery
of Rs.1,30,303/- besides stoppage of two annual increments without
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100648
RSA-3280-2015 (O & M) -2-
cumulative effect was imposed by the defendants vide order dated
18.01.2008. Plaintiff preferred a departmental appeal, which was
dismissed on 10.06.2011. Challenging both the orders, he filed a suit for
declaration alongwith consequential relief of mandatory injunction.
3. Upon being served, defendants filed a written statement
contesting the suit, wherein besides taking various preliminary
objections, it was submitted that when the plaintiff was working as an
SDO (OP), he had committed acts of omission and commission, which
were unbecoming of an officer of the Nigam. It was alleged that the
plaintiff restored supply to the electricity connection of a large scale
consumer after getting an amount of Rs.53,060/- deposited from him
against the total outstanding amount of Rs.2,05,060/-. The connection of
the consumer was again disconnected and a total amount of
Rs.4,60,179/- was due from the consumer, which is recoverable from the
plaintiff. It was submitted that an Inquiry Officer was appointed, who
found that the charges against the petitioner were proved and on its
basis, penal action was taken. Plaintiff did not file any replication to the
written statement filed by the defendants. Issues were framed on the
basis of the pleadings of the parties. Plaintiff stepped into the witness
box as PW-1 in support of his case and also tendered documents,
Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/7. Bachan Singh, UDC, was examined as DW-1
by the defendants, who tendered documents, Ex.D1 to D5 in evidence.
After the parties were heard, the Trial Court by judgment and decree
dated 15.03.2014, dismissed the suit. Plaintiff preferred an appeal before
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100648
RSA-3280-2015 (O & M) -3-
the First Appellate Court, which was accepted by judgment dated
20.11.2014, the Trial Court findings and judgment was reversed and a
decree was issued to the effect that the impugned orders are illegal and
that the plaintiff is entitled to the refund of the amount alongwith
interest. Defendants are before this Court in the above backdrop.
4. I have heard counsel for the appellants and have considered his
submissions.
5. The undisputed case of the parties is that charge-sheet
Ex.PW1/A was issued to the plaintiff under Regulation 7 of the
Regulations for inflicting a major penalty, to which, the plaintiff
submitted his reply. No inquiry as contemplated under Rule 8 of the
Regulations was held. Merely on the basis of the reply submitted by the
plaintiff, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report, which culminated in
the passing of the penal order. A Full Bench of this Court in Dr. K. G.
Tiwari Versus State of Haryana and others 2001 SCC Online P & H
1548 has held that once a charge-sheet is issued under Rule 7 of the
Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, for
imposition of a major penalty, which envisages holding of a regular
departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority cannot by merely
examining the reply to the charge-sheet, inflict even a minor punishment
without holding a complete departmental enquiry. In view of the settled
legal position, it is evident that the procedure adopted by the defendants-
appellants while imposing the punishment is in breach of the mandatory
service rules and cannot be sustained.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100648
RSA-3280-2015 (O & M) -4-
6. It has also been established on the record that prior to the
punitive action, the plaintiff was never supplied with a copy of the
inquiry report. In Union of India and others Versus Mohammad
Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588, Supreme Court has held that
whenever an Inquiry Officer furnishes a report to the disciplinary
authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of
all or any of the charges, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such
report and will be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so
desires, and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of
the rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge
thereafter. This judgment squarely applies to the facts of the present
case.
7. For the afore-going reasons, this Court does not find any
illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the Lower Appellate
Court, which is affirmed for reasons which are more than one.
8. At this stage, Mr. Anil Chawla, counsel for the appellants has
requested that as the charge-sheet stood served upon the plaintiff-
respondent, who has submitted a reply, liberty be granted to the
defendants-appellants to proceed further in accordance with law so as to
take the departmental proceeding to its logical conclusion. This request
has been considered, but it is not found to be feasible. The punishment
order was passed against the plaintiff-respondent in the year 2008 and
the departmental appeal was dismissed in the year 2011. Litigation has
remained pending for the last more than 13 years. Plaintiff-respondent
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:100648
RSA-3280-2015 (O & M) -5-
has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. In order
to give a quietus to the litigation, request made by counsel for the
defendant-appellant is rejected.
9. Appeal is dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, is disposed of.
06.08.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
