| 
                          
        Judgment: 
        Civil Appeal No. 3383 Of 2007 Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition 
        (Civil) No. 17250 Of 2006H.K. Sema, J.  - Leave granted.
 
                          
        This appeal is directed against the 
        judgment and order dated 3rd April, 2006 passed by the High Court of 
        Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 10039 of 2005.  
                          
        (3) Briefly stated, the facts are as 
        under: The respondent was working as Sub Divisional Engineer in Public Works 
        Department (B&R). By an order dated 20.10.1999, the following charges 
        were levelled against him:
 
                          
        "1. Breach of trust in making 
        attempt to pilferage Govt. Material/Cement. 
                          
        2. Negligence/ failure in the 
        faithful discharge of his duties as Sub Divisional Engineer. 
                          
        3. Concealment of facts by making 
        wrong statement. 
                          
        4. According approval to the indent 
        for 200 bags of cement without assessing exact requirement. 
                          
        5. Failure in getting a case 
        registered against the guilty persons and further failure in supervision 
        of Government material and 
                          
        6. Failure to report to the 
        authorities in time after being in the knowledge of the incident." 
                          
        (4) The Competent Authority 
        appointed Sh. B.D. Gupta, the then Superintending Engineer as Enquiry 
        Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report exonerating the 
        respondent of the charges levelled against him. The Competent Authority 
        disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and a notice was 
        issued to the respondent along with a copy of the Enquiry Report and 
        dissenting note. The respondent filed a reply to the show cause notice 
        vide letter dated 21.1.2000. The reply was rejected by affording the 
        respondent an opportunity of personal hearing. Thereafter, the 
        disciplinary authority, with the concurrence of the Punjab Public 
        Service Commission, awarded punishment of stoppage of two annual 
        increments with cumulative effect by an order dated 20.10.2003. 
        Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed a Review Appeal before the 
        Authority on 22.1.2004. The said Review Appeal, preferred by the 
        respondent, was considered by the Competent Authority and the same was 
        rejected vide its order dated 24.6.2004. Aggrieved thereby, he preferred 
        a Writ Petition before the High Court. 
                          
        (5) The only ground on which the 
        High Court has set aside the order of punishment dated 20.10.2003 and 
        the order passed by the Competent Authority in Review dated 24.6.2004, 
        rejecting the Review Appeal was that there was violation of the 
        principles of natural justice inasmuch as the opportunity of personal 
        hearing was not afforded to the respondent while dismissing the Review 
        Appeal by an order dated 24.6.2004. 
                          
        (6) Rule 21 of the Punjab Civil 
        Service (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 deals with the review. A 
        perusal of the aforesaid rule shows that there is no provision of 
        personal hearing in regard to inflicting minor penalties. The Rule 
        contemplates a personal hearing only when the Disciplinary Authority 
        proposes to impose any of the major penalties specified in clauses (v) 
        to (ix) of Rule 5 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order sought 
        to be reviewed to any of the penalties specified in those clauses. 
        Admittedly, by an order dated 20.10.2003, the respondent was inflicted 
        punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, which 
        is a minor punishment. The High Court, in our view, was clearly in error 
        in setting aside the order dated 24.6.2004 passed by the Competent 
        Authority on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 
        The High Court was also of the view that the order passed by the 
        Competent Authority dated 24.6.2004 is not a speaking order. This 
        finding of the High Court was not based on the material on record. We 
        have gone through the order dated 24.6.2004 passed by the Competent 
        Authority. In our view the order is supported with reasons. 
                          
        (7) For the reasons aforestated, the 
        impugned order of the High Court is unsustainable in law. It is 
        accordingly set aside. The order dated 24.6.2004 passed by the Competent 
        Authority in the Review Appeal is restored. 
                          
        (8) This appeal is allowed. The Writ 
        Petition filed by the respondent stands dismissed. Parties are asked to 
        bear their own costs.  
                          
        
        
         Print This Judgment |