The High Court quashed departmental orders imposing stoppage of increments with cumulative effect, holding them as major punishment despite being treated as minor by officials, relying on Supreme Court precedent.
Impugned orders dated 05.07.1988 and 09.11.1990 quashed; arrears to be paid within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 2783 of 1991 Date of Decision : August 06, 2010.
Manjit Singh Dhir
...... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...... Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.
Present:Mr. I.D. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for respondent.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
The petitioner herein has challenged the Orders Annexure-P-3 and Annexure-P-5 through the present writ petition whereby his two increments with cumulative effect has been stopped and also prayed for grant of penal interest.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the chargesheet was issued to the petitioner under Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, for imposing a minor punishment. The punishment, which has been imposed upon the petitioner, vide impugned Order dated 05.07.1988 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the respondent No. 1, was for withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect, which has been interpreted by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Versus The State of Punjab, 1990 (6) SLR 73, to be a major punishment . The major punishment cannot be imposed without holding a regular departmental inquiry against the delinquent employee. The punishment, which was imposed upon the petitioner, was without holding any regular departmental inquiry against him and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and deserves
C.W.P. No. 2783 of 1991
-2-
to be set aside.
Counsel for respondent states that stoppage of increment as interpreted by the officials was a minor punishment whether it was with cumulative or without cumulative effect and, therefore, the said punishment was imposed without holding any regular departmental inquiry. However, he could not dispute the ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Versus The State of Punjab (supra), holding that stoppage of increment with cumulative effect would be a major punishment which cannot be passed without holding a regular enquiry .
The present case is covered by the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill Versus The State of Punjab (supra), and accordingly allowed. The impugned Order dated 05.07.1988 (Annexure-P-3), imposing punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect as also the appellate Order dated 09.11.1990 (Annexure-P-5), vide which the Appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected, are quashed. The arrears be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE
August 06, 2010. sjks.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect constitutes major punishment requiring a departmental inquiry.
Whether the impugned orders imposing punishment without a departmental inquiry are sustainable.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to arrears of increments and penal interest.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kulwant Singh Gill Versus The State of PunjabFollowed¶13
Kulwant Singh Gill Versus The State of Punjab, 1990 (6) SLR 73
Kulwant Singh Gill Versus The State of PunjabFollowed¶17
Kulwant Singh Gill Versus The State of Punjab (supra)
Kulwant Singh Gill Versus The State of PunjabFollowed¶18
Kulwant Singh Gill Versus The State of Punjab (supra)
Manjit Singh Dhir
State of Haryana
Augustine George Masih
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
