JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. The facts necessary for deciding this petition, which has been filed for quashing the order dated 25.4.1997 passed by the Government of Haryana, are that the proceedings under Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 1987 Rules) were initiated against the petitioner vide memo Annexure P-1 dated 21.12.1993. The allegation leveled against him was that he has failed to exercise proper financial control on his subordinate Shri S.S. Magu, Sub Divisional Engineer whose action caused financial loss to the government. The petitioner submitted reply Annexure P-3 to contest the allegation leveled against him. Thereafter, the government passed the impugned order and imposed upon him penalty of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner has challenged the order of punishment mainly on the ground of violation of the rules and the principles of natural justice.
2. The respondents have pleaded that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is justified because he has been found guilty of negligence in the performance of duty as a supervisory authority.
3. Rule 4 of 1987 specifies the minor penalties which can be imposed on a government employee. The relevant extract of this rule is reproduced below:
“Rule 4. Penalties: (1) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided, be imposed on a government employee, namely:-
Minor Penalties :-
(i) to (iv) xx xx xx
(v) withholding of increments of pay without cumulative effect.
xx xx xx
4. Rule 8 which prescribes the procedure to be followed for imposing minor penalties reads as under :-
Rule 8. “Produce for imposing minor penalties :- Without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 7 no order for imposing a minor penalty shall be passed on a Government employee unless he has been given an adequate opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make and such representation has been taken into consideration.
Provided that this condition shall not apply in a case where an order based on facts has led to his conviction in a criminal court or an order has been passed superseding him for promotion to a higher post on the grounds of his unfitness for that post on account of the existence of unsatisfactory record;
Provided further that the requirements of this rule may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing be waived where it is not practicable to observe them and where they can be waived without injustice to the Government employee concerned.”
5. A bare reading of the rules quoted above shows that minor penalty of with- holding of increment of pay without cumulative effect can be imposed on a government employee subject to the following conditions :-
(i) There exists good and sufficient exists good and sufficient reasons for imposing one of the minor penalties specified in Rule 4; and (ii) the employee is given an adequate opportunity of making representation and such representation is taken into consideration by the punishing authority.
6. This shows that giving of notice to the employee calling upon him to submit representation against the proposed action, consideration of the representation, if any made and the recording of reasons constitute an integral part of the procedure which has to be followed by the competent Authority before an order imposing one of the minor penalties specified in Rule 4 can be imposed on a government employee. The requirement of giving an opportunity to make representation, consideration therefore and recording of good and sufficient reasons represents the embodiment of principles of natural justice which have to be complied with before the Competent Authority can impose minor penalty on an employee. What has happened in the present case shows half-hearted compliance of Rule 4 and Rule 8 of 1987 Rules. The government did give notice requiring the petitioner to submit representation in respect of the allegation leveled against him. However, without considering the representation submitted by him in an objective manner, the government passed the impugned order. A bare reading of the impugned order shows that the government has not recorded a finding that the reply submitted by the petitioner is unsatisfactory. It also does not show as to what are the operating reasons for holding the petitioner guilty of the allegation leveled against him. In view of this, there is no escape from the conclusion that the impugned order is ultra vires to Rule 4 read with Rule 8 of 1987 Rules as well as the principles of natural justice.
7. We are also of the opinion that even if the rules were silent on this count, the Court would have read the requirement of recording of reasons as implicit in the exercise of power by the government to impose punishment on an employee because it is a settled principle of law that every quasi judicial authority is bound to abide by the basic principles of natural justice, namely, that the order passed by such authority must contain reasons to support its conclusion. In this connection, it will be useful to refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Bhagat Raja v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1606, Mahabir Oil Mills v. State of Uttar Pradesh, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1302, State of Punjab v. Bakhtawar Singh and Ors., A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2083 and S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1984.
8. On the basis of above discussion, we allow the writ petition and quash the order Annexure P.3. However, liberty is given to the government to pass fresh order in accordance with law.
