This judgment affirms the findings of the Trial and First Appellate Courts that a penalty of stopping two increments constitutes a major penalty requiring a regular departmental inquiry under established Punjab precedents.
The regular second appeal was dismissed with no substantial question of law being recorded.
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
R.S.A. No.3485 of 1987 Date of decision:01.07.2010.
State of Punjab
...Appellant
Versus
Naranjan Singh ...Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Anshuman Chopra, Advocate, for Mr. Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for the respondent.
S.D.ANAND, J.
The Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court recorded a categorical finding that the imposition of the impugned penalty had to be invalidated as it amounted to a major penalty and it could not have been imposed without holding a regular departmental inquiry. The Competent Authority had imposed a penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect upon the plaintiff – respondent. In obtaining that view, the learned Courts relied upon 1969 S.L.R., 792 P&H Ram Das vs. State of Punjab and 1970 S.L.R., 660 Punjab & Haryana (Full Bench), Malwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab , w herein it was held that the penalty of stoppage of increments with future effect is a major penalty.
The learned State counsel has not been able to invite the attention of this Court to any substantial question of law which arises for consideration by this Court.
The well reasoned findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and also the learned First Appellate Court deserve affirmation and it is so ordered accordingly. There being no substantial question of law for consideration, this Regular Second Appeal shall stand dismissed.
Disposed of accordingly.
(S.D.ANAND) JUDGE
July 01, 2010 vinod*
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the finding of learned courts that stoppage of increments is a major penalty requiring a regular departmental inquiry warrants affirmation in the absence of a substantial question of law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Das vs. State of PunjabReferred¶12
1969 S.L.R., 792 P&H Ram Das vs. State of Punjab
Malwinder Singh Vs. State of PunjabReferred¶12
1970 S.L.R., 660 Punjab & Haryana (Full Bench), Malwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab
State of Punjab
Naranjan Singh
S.D.ANAND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
