Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kapoor Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 24 January, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009824
CWP-3204-2018 2024:PHHC:009824 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(209) CWP-3204-2018
Date of Decision : January 24, 2024
Kapoor Singh .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Sunil K. Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of
punishment dated 22.10.2012 (Annexure P-9) as well as the order passed in
appeal dated 02.09.2015 (Annexure P-14).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the imposition of
punishment in the present case is without following due process as
envisaged under law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after
the enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer, the same was
forwarded to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.04.2012, a copy of which has
been appended with this petition as Annexure P-8 and in the said show
cause notice, it has already been mentioned that the said enquiry report was
accepted which fact clearly shows that the show cause notice was issued
with a pre determined mind and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.10913 of 2016 titled as H.P.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009824
State Electricity Board Ltd vs. Mahesh Dahiya, decided on 18.11.2016,
any show cause notice issued along with enquiry report with the pre
determined notion stating that the said enquiry report has already been
accepted, the same violates the process as envisaged for holding the
disciplinary proceedings and violates the rules of natural justice. Learned
counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order of punishment as
well as the order passed in appeal are liable to be set aside on this ground
alone with the direction that a fresh show cause notice be issued to the
petitioner so as to seek his reply and thereafter pass appropriate order as
envisaged under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to
dispute that in the show cause notice, it has been already mentioned that the
enquiry report has been accepted but submits that though the said fact has
been mentioned in the show cause notice but still, the punishment as well as
order in appeal has been passed with the open mind which is clear from the
fact that while in appeal, the punishment imposed has been reduced by the
Appellate Authority.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
5. The respondents are under obligation to conduct the
disciplinary proceedings in a manner that the rules of natural justice are not
violated. It is a settled principle of law that after the enquiry report is
received and before the same is accepted, the employee is to be given due
opportunity to rebut the findings of the enquiry officer and whatever the
objections raised are to be taken into account so as to decide whether, any
punishment is to be imposed by accepting the said enquiry report or not.
6. The said procedure has not been followed by the respondents in
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009824
the present case as while issuing the show cause notice after the receipt of
enquiry report and while forwarding the same to the petitioner, the said
enquiry report has already been accepted. Once the said report has been
accepted while issuing show cause notice, the same makes it clear that the
respondents have already made up their mind to impose the punishment,
which is totally arbitrary and illegal. The said procedure has already been
held to be illegal and arbitrary by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while
passing order in Mahesh Dahiya's case (supra). The relevant paragraph 26
of the said judgment is as under:-
" 26. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
have heavily relied on the fact that before forwarding the copy
of the report by letter dated 02.04.2008 the Disciplinary
Authority-cum-Whole Time Members have already formed an
opinion on 25.02.2008 to punish the writ petitioner with major
penalty which is a clear violation of principle of natural justice.
We are of the view that before making opinion with regard to
punishment which is to be imposed on a delinquent, the
delinquent has to be given an opportunity to submit the
representation/reply on the inquiry report which finds a charge
proved against the delinquent. The opinion formed by the
Disciplinary Authority-cum-Whole Time Members on
25.02.2008 was formed without there being benefit of comments
of the writ petitioner on the inquiry report. The writ petitioner
in his representation to the inquiry report is entitled to point
out any defect in the procedure, a defect of substantial nature in
appreciation of evidence, any misleading of evidence both oral
or documentary. In his representation any inputs and
explanation given by the delinquent are also entitled to be
considered by the Disciplinary Authority before it embarks with
further proceedings as per statutory rules. We are, thus, of the
view that there was violation of principle of natural justice at
the level of Disciplinary Authority when opinion was formed to
punish the writ petitioner with dismissal without forwarding the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009824
inquiry report to the delinquent and before obtaining his
comments on the inquiry report. We are, thus, of the view that
the order of the High Court setting aside the punishment order
as well as the Appellate order has to be maintained."
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to rebut
that the procedure followed in the present case is contrary to the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Mahesh Dahiya's case
(supra).
8. That being the factual position, the order of punishment dated
22.10.2012 (Annexure P-9) as well as the order passed in appeal dated
02.09.2015 (Annexure P-14) are set aside. The case is remanded back to the
authorities concerned to follow the procedure envisaged under law from the
stage of issuing of show cause notice along with enquiry report and
thereafter consider the objections qua the enquiry report and then decide
keeping in view the facts and circumstances whether, any punishment is to
be imposed upon the petitioner or not.
9. The present writ petition is allowed in above terms.
January 24, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009824
4 of 4
