Regular Second Appeal No. 2702 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 2702 of 2008
Date of Order: 26.09.2008
State of Haryana and others
...Appellants
Versus
Amar Singh
..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
Present: Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana
for the appellants.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral).
The State of Haryana, challenges judgments and decrees
passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, dated 03.10.2007 and
the Additional District Judge, Karnal, dated 23.01.2008, decreeing the suit
of the respondent and dismissing their appeal, respectively.
The plaintiff-respondent, while working as a Forest Guard was
compulsorily retired from service on 10.07.1998. He was served with a
charge-sheet under Rule 7 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules for the
shortage of 424 trees. Eventually a recovery of Rs.3,24,025/- was ordered.
The plaintiff-respondent, filed a suit, challenging the enquiry proceedings
as also the order of punishment. The learned trial Court, found as a matter
of fact that the enquiry, though exparte was conducted in gross violation of
the provisions of Rule 7 and consequently decreed the suit and quashed
the order of punishment.
Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants filed
an appeal, which was dismissed by the first appellate Court on 23.01.2008.
Counsel for the appellants submits that as the respondent was
Regular Second Appeal No. 2702 of 2008 -2-
proceeded against ex-parte. The Enquiry Officer rightly held him guilty and
the punishing authority thereafter was justified in directing recovery of
Rs.3,24,025/-. It is submitted that minor infraction in the procedure
adopted by the Enquiry Officer, should have been overlooked by the courts
below and, therefore, the enquiry and the order of punishment should have
been upheld.
I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
judgments.
As held by the courts below, though the respondent was
proceeded against ex-parte, the enquiry office proceeded without recording
any evidence, summoning any witness in support of the documents
appended with the charge-sheet, and without recording any reasons,
submitted his report. In order to place the above conclusions in their
correct perspective, a relevant extract from the judgment of the first
appellate Court would be appropriate:-
“18. A combined reading of the statement of PW1 and DW2
would make it crystal clear that while conducting the enquiry
against the respondent under Rule 7, no witness as mentioned
in the list of witnesses appended with the charge sheet
examined not the prosecutor Karam Chand, who was
supposed to produce the documents, was called upon to
produce the same. The enquiry report Ex.D13 is silent as to
which document was relied upon and who proved the same to
be genuine and authenticated as rightly observed by the
learned lower court, even if the respondent was proceeded
against ex-parte, it never mean that the formal proof of the
document was to be dispensed with. There is a settled
proposition of law that the procedure established by Rule 7
cannot be curtailed in any manner, either the delinquent was
Regular Second Appeal No. 2702 of 2008 -3-contesting the charges of he was ex-parte.
19. After concluding that the established procedure as
contemplated under Rule 7 was not followed, the contention
of learned Govt. Pleader for the appellants that since the order
passed was covered under the category of minor penalties,
there was no requirement to adopt the complete procedure as
contemplated under Rule 7. This contention of learned Govt.
Pleader for the appellants is unable to cut much ice in view of
the settled proposition of law and the observations made in the
case law titled as Dr.K.G.Tiwari v. State of Haryana 2003 (1)
Labour and Services Judicial Reports, page 229 (P&H). It
is an Full Bench authoritative pronouncement of our Hon’ble
High Court and according to this, once a charge sheet has
been issued under Rule 7 of the imposition of a major penalty,
the disciplinary authority cannot inflict even a minor
punishment without holding a complete departmental enquiry.”
It is, therefore, apparent from the the above extract that the
enquiry was conducted in flagrant violation of the rules. The learned courts
below, therefore, had no option but to conclude that the enquiry as also the
order of punishment were void. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the
courts below do not suffer from any error as would give rise to a substantial
question of law.
No merit, dismissed.
September 26, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE