Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 497 (HP)

Joginder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2020-08-18

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2020
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "i) That the impugned orders contained in Annexures P-3, P-9, P-10 and P-14 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued thereby directing the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 17, 2007 Annexure P-10 whereby a major penalty has been imposed under Rule 11(v) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and his pay has been reduced to the minimum of pay scale". 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:- The petitioner was engaged as a Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper and he was serving as such in the Department of Fisheries at Palampur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh Disciplinary proceedings stood initiated against the petitioner purportedly on the ground that on account of dereliction of duty on his part, the premises where he was appointed as Chowkidar-cum- Sweeper, were engulfed in fire, as the petitioner was absent from duty at the time when the fire took place. 3. As the response filed to the initial memo so issued by the Disciplinary Authority to the petitioner, was not to the satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority, accordingly an Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted his report holding the petitioner to be guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority, after calling upon the petitioner to submit his response to the Inquiry Report, vide which order dated 17.05.2007 (Annexure P-10), imposed the penalty of reduction to the minimum of the pay scale of Chowkidar-cum- Sweeper for a period of five years upon the petitioner with further direction that petitioner was not to earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that after the expiry of period of reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments upon the same. 4. The period of suspension of the petitioner, vide Annexure P-11, dated 20.07.2007, was also ordered to be treated as leave of kind due and admissible. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal and Appellate Authority dismissed the same vide Annexure P-14, dated 16.02.2008, by holding as under:- "Shri Joginder Singh, Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper, office of Asstt. Director of Fisheries, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., hereinafter referred to as the charged official was issued charge sheet under Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 24.09.2005. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal and Appellate Authority dismissed the same vide Annexure P-14, dated 16.02.2008, by holding as under:- "Shri Joginder Singh, Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper, office of Asstt. Director of Fisheries, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., hereinafter referred to as the charged official was issued charge sheet under Rule-14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 24.09.2005. The gist of charges framed against Shri Joginder Singh, Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper is:- i) That Shri Joginder Singh, while working as Chowkidar-cum-Sweeper in the office of Asstt. Director of Fisheries, Palampur during the period on 13.3.2005, was found absent from duty when a fire broke out in the office of Asstt. Director of Fisheries Palampur. ii) that Shri Joginder Singh is also charged for dereliction of duty during the period in question. I have carefully examined the appeal, the enquiry report alongwith its record and the order of the disciplinary authority. The charge of absence from duty and dereliction of duty stands conclusively proved. In fact, even the charged official admits that he was away from the office i.e. the place of duty at the time of the fire incident to have his meals at a friend's house. This desertion of duty has proved very costly. No leniency need be shown in this matter. The appeal is accordingly, rejected". 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents appended with the petition. 7. In the matter of disciplinary proceedings, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, primarily does not interferes with the findings of fact returned by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority until and unless there are glaring mistakes contained in them as compared to the record. The Court is more concerned with the procedural aspect of the matter and as to whether the delinquent employee has had a reasonable opportunity to put forth his case and whether the inquiry has been conducted inconsonance with the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,1965. 8. The Quasi-Judicial Authorities, who act as Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority in disciplinary proceedings, as the case may be, while deciding the rights of the parties, are bound to pass reasoned and speaking orders both, while as a Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. 9. 8. The Quasi-Judicial Authorities, who act as Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority in disciplinary proceedings, as the case may be, while deciding the rights of the parties, are bound to pass reasoned and speaking orders both, while as a Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority. 9. Coming to the facts of this case, feeling aggrieved by the order which stood passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority on the grounds as stand mentioned in the grounds of appeal. However, the order which stood passed by the Appellate Authority, neither takes into consideration the grounds, which stood urged by the petitioner in the grounds of appeal nor any discussion is there in the order viz-a-viz the grounds so raised and the factual matrix of the case. In other words, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority without any due application of mind and by passing a completely non-speaking as well as unreasoned order. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases has held that the Quasi-Judicial Authority should pass both speaking as well as reasoned order so that the conclusion which is arrived at by the authorities concerned in the order, is well spelled out from the body of the order itself. The law as it stands today, has gone down to the extent that such authorities even while passing administrative order, have to pass a reasoned order in case such administrative order is to have any effect on the right of the party concerned. 11. As I have already mentioned hereinabove, the order which stood passed on the appeal of the petitioner by the Appellate Authority, is completely non-speaking and unreasoned order. In this view of the matter, in my considered view, without making any further observation on the merits of the present case, it will be in the interest of justice, in case this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority and by remanding the matter back to the said Appellate Authority, with a direction that the appeal be heard and decided afresh by the Appellate Authority after giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. Ordered accordingly. 12. The petition is partly allowed. Ordered accordingly. 12. The petition is partly allowed. The order passed by the Appellate Authority, dated 16.02.2008 (Annexure P-14), is quashed and set aside and the Appellate Authority is directed to hear the appeal afresh and adjudicate the same within a period of three months from today after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner either in person or through authorized representative. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.