JUDGMENT
Shiva Kirti Singh, J.
1. Petitioner in this writ application is a Jail Clerk in the service of Government of Bihar. He seeks quashing of order dated 10.3.1989 passed by the Inspector-General of Prisons, Bihar, contained in memo No. 1677/J dated 14.3.1989 by which the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments of pay with cumulative effect has been awarded to the petitioner.
2. In view of nature of grievance raised against the impugned order, it is not necessary in this case to take note of facts in detail. It is sufficient to note that according to respondents, petitioner was responsible for lapses on two counts while he was posted as a Jail Clerk at Bettiah, Accordingly, an explanation was asked for from the petitioner. According to respondents, the petitioner did not submit any explanation and thereafter through some sort of inquiry, he was found guilty of two charges and the impugned order was passed on that basis.
3. Petitioner’s case is that no explanation was ever sought from him and in any event a major punishment could not have been awarded to him without resorting to holding a proper disciplinary proceeding in which charges, etc. should have been communicated along with memo of evidence and admittedly, this was never done and hence, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice as well as in violation of provisions in the service rules which require a detailed enquiry in case of award of a major punishment, only after giving adequate opportunity of defence to the concerned employee.
4. In paragraph 7 as well as in some other paragraphs of the writ petition, the petitioner has pleaded that the impugned order contains a wrong statement that he was earlier under suspension and further no explanation was ever sought from the petitioner. His further case is that in law a detailed inquiry was required to be conducted after framing of charges which was never done and hence, the impugned order is against the principles of natural justice. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have, asserted in paragraph 8 that the writ petitioner was asked to explain the charges levelled against him through a registered letter dated 19.8.1987. However, the respondents have not taken the stand that any departmental inquiry was ever conducted as required by the relevant service rules and clearly the impugned order has been passed in a manner which permissible under the service rules only for award of minor punishment.
5. There was some controversy as to whether stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect would amount to a minor punishment or a major punishment as defined tin the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. However, the said controversy is no longer res integra in view of judgment of the apex Court in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. The State of Punjab 1990 (6) SLR 73. Considering similar provisions in Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, the Supreme Court held that the effect of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect is that the employee is reduced in his time-scale by a number of steps for which the increments are withheld and it is in perpetuity during the rest of his service tenure and hence, the effect of such a punishment is reduction to a lower time-scale. Such punishment is covered by Rule 2(iii) of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and such reduction is treated to be a major punishment along with punishment of dismissal, removal and for inflicting such a punishment, Rule 55 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules has been made applicable. Aforesaid Rule 55 contemplates not only giving information of the grounds on which action is proposed to be taken but also of affording an adequate opportunity to the delinquent of defending himself by taking appropriate defence by cross-examining the witnesses and by leading his own witness.
6. In the aforesaid judgment of the apex Court in the case of Kulivant Singh Gill (supra), the apex Court further held that in the case of major penalty mere issuing of show cause notice and consideration of explanation is not a sufficient compliance of the service rules which require a regular departmental inquiry to be held for the purpose of inflicting a major penalty and in such an enquiry reasonable opportunity must be afforded to the employee concerned to adduce evidence and to examine and cross-examine witnesses for the purposes of defence.
7. Since in this case no such departmental inquiry was ever held to the knowledge of the petitioner, hence, the impugned order by which major penalty has been awarded to the petitioner must be held to be vitiated in law on account of being in violation of principles of natural justice as well as in violation of requirements of relevant service rules. Accordingly, the impugned order contained in Annexure-1 is hereby quashed. The consequent benefits due to quashing of Annexure-1 should be calculated and paid to the petitioner at an early date preferably within four months. Although long number of years have lapsed since the alleged irregularities, but if the respondents so decide after looking into all the relevant records of the matter it will be open for them to initiate a fresh proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law.
8. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.