Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1148 (PNJ)

State Of Haryana v. S. K. Goyal

2006-03-20

VINEY MITTAL

body2006
Judgment VINEY MITTAL, J. 1. The defendants State of Haryana and others have lost concurrently before the two Courts below. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration challenging the order dated september 17, 2003. It was claimed by the plaintiff that defendant No.2-Secretary to Government Haryana, had imposed a punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and the aforesaid order was illegal and bad. 2. The facts which emerge from the record show that the charge-sheet dated January 16,2003 was served upon the plaintiff. A show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff for imposition of a minor penalty. As noticed above, the order of punishment was passed on September 17,2003 imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect under Rule 8 of the haryana civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. The Courts below have noticed that although the aforesaid punishment was a minor punishment but because of the fact that the plaintiff was to retire w. e. f. March 31, 2005 and his next increment was due as on April 1, 2005, therefore, in effect, the stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect would result in stopping the aforesaid increment permanently affecting the pensionary benefits payable to the plaintiff. 3. As a result of the aforesaid findings, it has also been held by the two courts below that because of the consequential effect of the aforesaid punishment, the procedure for imposition of a major penalty was required to be followed. Consequently, the order dated September 17, 2003 has been held to be illegal and bad. The suit of the plaintiff has been decreed by the trial Court and the appeal of the defendants failed before the learned first Appellate Court. 4. Mr. D. S. Nalwa, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has vehemently argued that the two Courts below have itself noticed that the order of punishment was for merely a minor punishment. On that basis, it has been argued that once the punishment imposed by the defendants was merely a minor punishment, then the plaintiff should have challenged the viries of the rules, if the effect of the aforesaid punishment was of permanent effect. On that basis, it has been argued that once the punishment imposed by the defendants was merely a minor punishment, then the plaintiff should have challenged the viries of the rules, if the effect of the aforesaid punishment was of permanent effect. The learned counsel has thus maintained that since the viries of the Rules were not challenged by the plaintiff at any stage, therefore, the judgements of the two Courts below are, in effect, in contravention of the Rules applicable to the case of the plaintiff. Having given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants, I find myself unable to accept the same. 5. It is not in dispute that a charge-sheet was served upon the plaintiff and the show- cause notice was also served upon him for imposition of minor penalty. A minor penalty was imposed upon him. Only one increment without cumulative effect was ordered to be stopped. However, the fact remains that the plaintiff was to retire w. e. f. March 31, 2005. It is not in dispute that his next increment was to become due to him w. e. f. April 1, 2005. In these circumstances, the effect of the order of even minor punishment is that the plaintiff was, as a fact, granted a major punishment. This aspect of the matter was never considered by the punishing authority while awarding the punishment. The viries of the rules are nor in dispute. The plaintiff had merely challenged the aforesaid order keeping in view the real effect and consequences of the punishment order. Since the aforesaid factual position was ignored by the Punishing Authority, therefore, the two Courts below have examined the validity of the aforesaid punishment order, keeping in view the consequences thereof. The viries of the Rules are not in question. 6. Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal. Dismissed.