JUDGMENT
M.M. Kumar, J.
1.
This petition filed under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India challenges the orders Annexures
P-4, P-6, P-10, P-15, P-20, P-24, P-27 and P-29 inflicting
various punishments on the petitioner, which in service
jurisprudence are known as “minor punishments”.
2.
After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties, I am of the considered opinion that the order
Annexure P-4, P-6, P-10 and P-20 cannot be sustained
because these orders have been passed after issuance of
charge-sheets under Regulation 7 of the Haryana State
Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal)
Regulation, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as
“regulation”).
3.
A Full Bench of this Court has considered the
question as to whether after issuance of charge-sheet
under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1987 for inflicting of major penalty, the employer
is entitled to accept the explanation furnished by way of
reply by the delinquent officer and impose a minor penalty
without holding any inquiry. It has been held by the Full
Bench that after a charge-sheet has been issued to
delinquent officer for holding departmental inquiry
contemplating imposition of major penalty, then no
short-cut method is permissible even for imposing of minor
penalty. It is not disputed that the respondent-Board has
issued charge-sheet to the petitioner for imposition of
major penalty and without holding an inquiry accepted his
explanation for imposing minor penalty. The orders
Annexure P-4, P-6, P-10 and P-20 have been passed
inflicting minor penalty. Therefore, it is obvious that
such a course is not permissible in law as ruled by the
Full Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 3661 of 1999
(Dr. K.G. Tiwari, SDO, Animal Husbandry (Retd.) v. State of
Haryana and Ors.) decided on 20th December, 2001.
Therefore, these impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
4.
Similarly, the orders Annexures P-15 and P-24
have been challenged on the ground that the orders do not
reflect any application of mind and also lack reasons. It
is well settled that under Regulation 4, even minor
punishment cannot be imposed unless there are good and
sufficient reasons. Reasons are sine qua non for every
quasi judicial order as they provide link between the
guilt of the delinquent officer as well as the conclusion
reached by the punishing authority. This aspect is also
covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in x x x x x
C.W.P. No. 3710 of 1994 titled Digambar Singh v. Haryana
State Electricity Board and Anr. decided on 3.8.1994.
Therefore, these two orders are also liable to be quashed
on that ground.
5. For the reasons recorded above, orders
Annexure P-4, P-6, P-10, P-20, P-15 and P-24 are quashed.
However, it shall be open to the respondent-Board to take
a decision afresh by holding inquiry in respect of the
cases where charge-sheets under Regulation 7 have been
issued or by passing fresh order in case where show-cause
notices under Regulation 8 for imposing minor penalties
have been served on the delinquent officer. Therefore,
the question of consequential relief may also be
considered by the Board in case no punishment is imposed
on the petitioner. Needless to say that if the
allegations levelled in the charge-sheets are found to be
baseless, then the Annual Confidential Reports or
consequences flowing therefrom shall be reviewed and
re-considered.
6. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.