3 decades later, HC sets aside 1990 order stopping increments without inquiry

Three decades after a Punjab State Electricity Board employee was proceeded against without a regular inquiry, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that stoppage of two annual increments with future effect amounts to a major penalty, and that such punishment cannot be imposed without following the detailed procedure prescribed under the relevant regulations.

The verdict by Justice Vikas Bahl came in a Regular Second Appeal filed in 1994—challenging order dated May 31, 1990, which had stopped two increments of the appellant without any inquiry. Justice Bahl, who decided the matter in just over six months, set aside the order as “illegal, null and void”, and decreed the suit in favour of the employee.

Holding that the lower courts had erred in upholding the penalty, Justice Bahl ruled: “The stoppage of two annual increments with future effect is a major penalty and since it is a major penalty, the detailed procedure, as prescribed Punjab State Electricity Board (Employees Punishments and Appeal) Regulations, 1971, was required to be complied with, which admittedly had not been done in the present case.”

The appeal was filed by Inderjit Singh, a lower division clerk with the Punjab State Electricity Board, against order dated May 31, 1990. Singh had appeared in a departmental examination held at Ferozepur in June 1989, after which a show cause notice dated August 14, 1989 was issued to him under the 1971 Regulations. Without serving any charge-sheet or holding an inquiry, the department imposed the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with future effect.

Justice Bahl asserted that the facts were undisputed and that “no regular departmental inquiry was conducted”. The court observed that the “1971 Regulations, as they stand after the amendment, leave no matter of doubt that the said penalty is a major penalty.”

Recounting the mandatory process laid down under the Regulations, the Bench added: “It is apparent that holding of an inquiry is necessary in case a major penalty is to be imposed or is proposed to be imposed and there is nothing in the regulations to show that in case, to a show cause notice, no reply is filed by an employee, then, holding of the regular inquiry could be done away with.”

Rejecting the respondent’s plea that no reply to the show cause notice justified the penalty, Justice Bahl added: “No law has been cited before this Court also to show that in case no reply to the show cause notice is given, the holding of a regular inquiry in the said circumstances could be done away with.”

Finding fault with both the trial and first appellate courts for relying on the wrong set of regulations, the Bench observed: “The judgments of the trial Court as well as of the first Appellate Court suffer from perversity and illegality, as the wording of the regulations which have been considered is contrary to the relevant regulations itself.”

On the issue of holding a fresh inquiry after such a lapse of time, Justice Bahl asserted: “The impugned order was passed in the year 1990 and the present appellant is stated to have retired… on account of the lapse of time, it would not be expedient to hold the inquiry at this stage.”

Allowing the appeal, the court decreed the employee’s suit and directed that he be granted all consequential benefits, bringing final closure to a matter that had remained pending in courts for over 31 years.