Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1624 (PNJ)

Naveen Kumar v. Punjab And Haryana High Court

2010-05-11

PERMOD KOHLI

body2010
Judgment Permod Kohli, J. 1. Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of the counsel, this petition is disposed of at motion stage. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Steno-typist by the District and Sessions Judge, Rohatak. Later he was appointed as Judgment Writer in the Sessions Division, Hisar where the petitioner joined after resigning from the post of Steno-typist in District Rohtak. On a complaint made by Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on 14.3.2007 (Annexure P- 1) which reads as under :- "I, Lakshman Sharma, District and Sessions Judge, Fatehabad do hereby charge you Sh. Naveen Kumar Gaba, Judgment Writer (Jr. Scale) in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Tohana as under :- 1. That on 15.9.2006 you were called by your were called by your Presiding Officer at 3 p.m. to take dictation of judgment in case titled Sahabprit Singh v. Smt. Rajvinder Kaur, but you flatly refused and uttered derogatory remarks "Mujhe Band Kar Bitha Diya Hai Mai Dictation Nahi Le Sakta (I have been bound and I could not take dictation)". 2. That you leave the station without prior permission of your learned Presiding Officer and failed to submit any reply to the show-cause notice served upon you vide Memo No. 1598 dated 9.9.06. 3. That your aforesaid acts are depreciable and amount to grave misconduct, lack of devotion to duties, which is highly unbecoming of a public servant. Sd/- District & Sessions Judge, Fatehabad". 3 A regular enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 6.11.2007. The charges against the petitioner were held to proved and the Enquiry Officer proposed punishment of dismissal. In the meanwhile, the petitioner submitted his representation. After going through the representation and hearing the petitioner in person, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 9.9.2008 (Annexure P-5) and imposed the following penalty :- "reduction from his current pay scale of Rs. In the meanwhile, the petitioner submitted his representation. After going through the representation and hearing the petitioner in person, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 9.9.2008 (Annexure P-5) and imposed the following penalty :- "reduction from his current pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-8300-EB-175- 9000 to a lower scale of pay of five years, on his promotion to the time scale, or to the scale of pay currently being drawn by him and also stoppage of four annual increments next due to him the pay scale of pay which he would henceforth be entitled to draw." 4 The petitioner filed service appeal against the aforesaid order of punishment (Annexure P-5) which was dismissed vide order dated 12.1.2009 (Annexure P-6). These orders (Annexures P-5 and P-6) are subject matter of challenge in his writ petition. 5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the findings of the enquiry, but restricts his prayer with regard to quantum of punishment. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have imposed three punishments i.e. i) reduction from current pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-8300-EB-175-9000 to a lower scale of pay of Rs. 4000-100-4800-EB-100-6000, ii) bar for five years, on his promotion to the time scale, or to the scale of pay currently being drawn by him; and iii) stoppage of four annual increments next due to the petitioner. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that such a course is unknown tot he service jurisprudence. Such an amalgam of minor and major penalties imposed by the same order is illegal. 7. I have learned counsel for the parties. The issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is no more res integra. While considering a similar issue in the case of Union of India and another v. S.C. Parahar, 2006(1) S.C.T. 805 : (2006) 3 SCC 167, the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under :- "12. The penalty imposed upon the respondent is an amalagam of minor penalty and major penalty. The respondent has been inflicted with three penalties : (1) reduction to the minimum of the time-scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect; (2) loss of seniority; and (3) recovery of 25% of the loss incurred by the Government to the tune of Rs. The respondent has been inflicted with three penalties : (1) reduction to the minimum of the time-scale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect; (2) loss of seniority; and (3) recovery of 25% of the loss incurred by the Government to the tune of Rs. 74,341.89p., on account of damage of the Gypsy in 18 (eighteen ) equal monthly instalments. Whereas reduction of time-scale of pay with cumulative effect is a major penalty within the meaning of clause (v) of Rule 11 of the CCS Rules, loss of seniority and recovery of amount would come within the purview of minor penalty, as envisaged by clause (iii) and (iii)(a) thereof. The Disciplinary Authority, therefore, in our opinion acted illegally and without jurisdiction in imposing both minor and major penalties by the same order. Such a course of action could not have been taken in law". 8. In view of the ratio of above judgment, the writ petition with regard to challenge to the findings of enquiry is dismissed as not pressed. However, the impugned order qua the components of punishment is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondents for reconsideration of quantum of punishment to be imposed upon the petitioner. It is open to the punishing to impose one of the prescribed punishments commensurate with the misconduct. Disposed of. Petition dismissed.