http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3383 of 2007

PETITIONER: State of Punjab

RESPONDENT: Nirmal Singh

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/08/2007

BENCH: H.K. Sema & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3383        OF 2007 ARISING OUT OF  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 17250 OF 2006

H.K. SEMA, J.  

(1)     Leave granted.  

(2)     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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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.