Quashed

Balbir Isngh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Sept 2008CWP/3920/1985

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his reversion from an officiating Ziledar to a lower post of Assistant Revenue Clerk after an enquiry for producing a forged certificate led to only a stoppage of increments. The Court quashed the reversion to the assistant post, deeming it illegal double punishment, and ordered restoration to the original post for pension and other benefits.

What did the court decide?

Reversion to Assistant Revenue Clerk quashed; deemed reverted as Revenue Clerk; pensionary benefits granted as Revenue Clerk.

Balbir Isngh Vs State of Punjab and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.W.P. No.3920 of 1985 Decided on: 02.09.2008

¶3

Balbir Singh

¶4

...............Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and another ..............Respondents

¶7

Present: Mr. Sandeep Khungar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab.

¶9

PERMOD KOHLI J.(ORAL)

¶10

Petitioner was serving as Revenue Clerk with respondent-State. He came to be adjusted/promoted as Officiating Ziledar purely on temporary basis as stop gap arrangement vide order dated 24.10.1975 along with three others. Vide subsequent order dated 19.10.1977, petitioner was reverted back as Assistant Revenue Clerk.

¶11

Respondents initiated a disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner for having produced a forged F.A. Certificate to secure the promotion as Ziledar. A charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and a regular departmental enquiry was held in accordance with the rules. The enquiry was culminated in the penalty of stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 15.01.1980. Petitioner's appeal against the order of punishment stand rejected. Petitioner has accordingly approached this Court for quashment of the order of reversion as also the stoppage of increments referred to hereinabove.

¶12

From the order dated 15.01.1980, it appears that the only punishment imposed on the basis of enquiry is the forfeiture of four increments. Petitioner was ordered to be reverted vide Annexure P-2, order dated 19.10.1977. This reversion is not based upon any enquiry or disciplinary proceedings nor any charge-sheet seems to have been issued in

¶13

C.W.P. No.3920 of 1985

¶14

-2-

¶15

this regard.

¶16

It is not in dispute that when the petitioner was promoted as Ziledar he was in the rank of Revenue Clerk. Next promotion from Revenue Clerk is to the post of Ziledar. Post of Assistant Revenue Clerk is lower in rank from Revenue Clerk. It is also admitted position that petitioner's promotion as Ziledar was only on stop gap arrangement and temporary without holding any process of selection or adopting the procedure for such promotion. Vide Annexure P-2, the petitioner has been reverted on termination of his ad hoc appointment. However, the petitioner has been reverted back to the post of Assistant Revenue Clerk instead of Revenue Clerk the post held by him at the time of his promotion as Ziledar.

¶17

Respondents in the order dated 28.05.1981 have tried to explain the reversion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Revenue Clerk. In the endorsement at the foot of the aforesaid order, it has been mentioned that the petitioner has been reverted as Assistant Revenue Clerk on the basis of punishment awarded to him for stoppage of four increments. This action of the respondents is totally illegal and unwarranted. Petitioner cannot be made to suffer two penalties for one offence/misconduct. The only charge against him was forging of F.A. Certificate which was relevant only for promotion from the post of Revenue Clerk to the post of Ziledar. That certificate having been found fake or invalid, the petitioner has been punished for forfeiture of four increments. However, the petitioner's reversion to the post of Assistant Revenue Clerk is not justified in any circumstance. If the petitioner has been reverted back because the promotion to the post of Ziledar was only temporary and on stop gap arrangement, he could only be reverted to the post of Revenue Clerk held by him at the time of his promotion. No circumstance has been indicated as to how and on what basis he has been further reverted to the post of Assistant

¶18

-3-

¶19

C.W.P. No.3920 of 1985

¶20

Revenue Clerk except the endorsement made at the foot of the order dated 28.05.1981. It is settled law that a public servant cannot be punished twice for the same act or misconduct. A similar view has been adopted by this

¶21

Court in case Leela Singh vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others

¶22

2005(2) I.L.R. (Punjab) 590 wherein following observations are made:-

¶23

"We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the considered opinion that the order of termination could not have been passed against the petitioner since on the same charges, he had already been punished. By order dated 11.01.2002 (Annexure P-2).... Therefore, now to order termination of the services of the petitioner would amount to punishing the petitioner twice for the same misconduct."

¶24

In view of the settled legal position, the reversion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Revenue Clerk is hereby quashed. However, the petitioner's reversion shall be deemed to the post of Revenue Clerk only.

¶25

Since the punishment of forfeiture of four increments has been imposed after the enquiry and the enquiry is not under challenge imposition of this penalty is upheld.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has retired from service. The petitioner shall be entitled to pensionary benefits as if he has retired as a Revenue Clerk and he will be granted all consequential benefits attached to the post of Revenue Clerk. He will also be entitled to all benefits of the post of Revenue Clerk for the period he remained as Assistant Revenue Clerk after reversion.

¶27

Let the consequential orders be passed and benefits be released within a period of six months from today.

¶28

September 2, 2008 (PERMOD KOHLI) Pankaj* JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter? Yes/No

Balbir Isngh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balbir Isngh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darshana Vs State of Punjab

S.S.Kalsi Vs the State of Punjab

B.S.Bansal Vs Pb.State

Gurbachan Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Arminder Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

All India Forum for National and Ors. Vs U.T. Chd. and Ors.