Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gagandeep vs State Of Punjab And Others on 2 September, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113868
CWP No. 9030 of 2021 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(251) CWP No. 9030 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 02.09.2024
Gagandeep
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapan Shorey, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated
17.03.2021 (Annexure P-12) by which the benefit of selection grade given to
the petitioner vide order dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure P-11) has been
withdrawn by the respondents and the recovery has been ordered.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the
claim on merit, the benefit once extended by the respondents themselves
could not have been withdrawn without giving any opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner and in the present case, not even a show cause notice was
issued before passing the impugned order dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure P-12)
so as to withdraw the benefits extended to the petitioner vide order dated
01.07.2015 (Annexure P-11), which action of the respondents is arbitrary and
illegal.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113868
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
benefit extended to the petitioner vide order dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure
P-11) was in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 17953
of 2000 titled as Dr. K.K. Goyal and others Vs. The State of Punjab and
another, decided on 22.09.2008 and other connected cases, hence, even
otherwise, the said benefit could not have been withdrawn and had the
respondents given the petitioner a show cause notice before withdrawing the
benefit of selection grade, all the objections to the proposal to withdraw the
benefit extended to the petitioner vide order dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure P-
11) would have been raised.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that once, the
benefit of ad-hoc service rendered could not have been given for fixation of
salary, the benefit of selection grade has rightly been withdrawn.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. It is a settled principle of law that no order causing prejudice to
an employee can be passed without giving any opportunity of hearing,
especially when the order passed causes financial prejudice to an employee.
In the present case, the benefits which were extended to the petitioner vide
order dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure P-11), have been withdrawn by the
impugned order. By the impugned order, the salary of the petitioner has been
re-fixed and recovery has been ordered. Once, the order dated 17.03.2021
(Annexure P-12) causes prejudice to the petitioner, the same could not have
been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113868
7. It is a settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2265 of 2011 titled as Chamoli District
Co-operative Bank Ltd through its Secretary/Mahaprandhak and another
vs. Raghunath Singh Rana and others, 2016(12) SCC 204, decided on
17.05.2016 and in Civil Appeal No. 9417 of 2019 titled as M/s Daffodills
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and another vs. State of U.P. and another 2019 (12)
JT 283, decided on 13.12.2019 that where any order passed by the authority
concerned causes prejudice to an employee, especially financial liability, an
opportunity of hearing is must and no order causing prejudice to an employee
can be passed by an employer unilaterally. The relevant para of Daffodills
Pharmaceuticals's case (supra) is as under:-
"15. In the present case, even if one assumes that Surender
Chaudhary, the accused in the pending criminal case was
involved and had sought to indulge in objectionable activities,
that ipso facto could not have resulted in unilateral action of the
kind which the State resorted to- against Daffodils, which was
never granted any opportunity of hearing or a chance to
represent against the impugned order. If there is one constant
lodestar that lights the judicial horizon in this country, it is this:
that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being
afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing, and prior intimation
of such a move. This principle is too well entrenched in the legal
ethos of this country to be ignored, as the state did, in this case.
16. The High Court, in the opinion of this court, fell into error in
holding that in matters of award of public contracts, the scope of
inquiry in judicial review is limited. Granted, such jurisdiction is
extremely circumscribed; no doubt the court had refused to grant
relief to Daffodils against its plea of wrongful rejection of its
tender. However, what the impugned judgment clearly overlooks
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113868
is that the action of the state, not to procure indefinitely, on an
assumption of complicity by Daffodils, was in flagrant violation
of principles of natural justice."
8. The relevant paragraph of the Chamoli's case (supra) is as
under:-
"19. The compliance of natural justice in
domestic/disciplinary inquiry is necessary has long been
established. This Court has held that even there are no specific
statutory rule requiring observance of natural justice, the
compliance of natural justice is necessary. Certain ingredients
have been held to be constituting integral part of holding of an
inquiry. The Apex Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Pvt.
Ltd. v. Their Workmen reported in (1964) 3 SCR 616 has laid
down following:-
"... An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held
unless, (i) the employee proceeded against has been informed
clearly of the charges levelled against him, (ii) the witnesses are
examined - ordinarily in the presence of the employee - in
respect of the charges, (iii) the employee is given a fair
opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, (iv) he is given a fair
opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his
defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter, and (v) the
inquiry officer records his findings with reasons for the same in
his report."
9. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to show
that any show cause notice was served upon the petitioner before passing the
impugned order, hence, it can be safely presumed that impugned order has
been passed by violating the principles of natural justice, hence, the
impugned order dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure P-12) is set-aside.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:113868
10. The respondents in case, want to pursue the said issue so as to
pass a fresh order, they should follow appropriate procedure as envisaged
under law by giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, present petition is allowed in above terms.
12. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
September 02, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
5 of 5
