LexD.H.B.V.N.L. VIDYUT NAGAR, HISAR & OTHERS versus YASHVIR SINGH GULIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 501 D.H.B.V.N.L. VIDYUT NAGAR, HISAR & OTHERS v. YASHVIR SINGH GULIA (Civil Appeal No. 6150 of 2013) JULY 30, 2013 [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ. Service Law: 501 Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1999 - Regulation 7(8) - Initiation A B c of proceedings under regulation 7 for imposition of major penalty - But after considering the reply of the delinquent imposition of minor penalty without holding departmental 0 enquiry - Whether full fledged departmental inquiry was required - Held: Under regulation 7(8) the competent authority is empowered to dispense with departmental inquiry, even though it has contemplated major penalty proceedings - On being satisfied with the reply of the delinquent, can follow E the procedure for imposing minor penalty. The question for consideration in the present appeal was whether once a charge-sheet has been issued for imposition of a major penalty under Regulation 7 of the Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment F & Appeal) Regulations, 1990, is it obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a full fledged departmental inquiry, even if, after considering the reply of the delinquent, the authority decides to impose a minor penalty, for which no departmental inquiry is provided G under the Regulations. Allowing the appeal, the Court 501 H 502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A HELD: 1.1. Regulation 7(8) of Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1990 clearly indicates that the competent authority has got the power to dispense with the procedure for holding a departmental inquiry, even B though it had contemplated major penalty proceedings, on being satisfied with the reply submitted by the delinquent officer. In such a case, it can always follow the procedure for imposing minor penalty. Minor penalty, as per the Regulation, can be inflicted without holding any c departmental inquiry, by giving only a show-cause-notice and a reasonable opportunity to make a representation to the show-cause-notice. Personal hearing can also be afforded and also can be dispensed with by a speaking order. [Para 12] [509-H; 510-A-B] D 1.2. In the instant case, the procedure provided under regulation 7(8) has been followed by the Board. The delinquent officer was given an opportunity to submit his reply to the show-cause-notice which was considered and the Board took a conscious decision to impose only E a minor penalty, i.e. barring one increment without cumulative effect, for which no full-fledged departmental inquiry is contemplated. The District Judge as well as the High Court has committed a grave error in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Board which is perfectly F legal. [Para 13] [510-C-E] 2. If imposition of a minor penalty is not a bar in granting promotion to the respondent, due promotion be granted to him in accordance with the Rules and G Regulations applicable to him. [Para 15] [510-F-G] H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6150 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2012 of the I- D.H.B.V.N.L. VIDYUT NAGAR, HISAR & OTHERS v. 503 YASHVIR SINGH GULIA High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular A Second Appeal No. 3094 of 2011 (O&M) Narender Hooda, AAG. Surender Singh ,Hooda, Kamal Mohan Gupta for the Appellants. Surbhi Mehta, Gaurav Sharma, for the Respondent. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K.5. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal C is whether once a charge-sheet has been issued for imposition of a major penalty under Regulation 7 of the Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1990 [for short "the Regulations 1990"], is it obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a D full fledged departmental inquiry even if, after considering the reply of the delinquent, the authority decides to impose a minor penalty, for which no departmental inquiry is provided under the Regulations. 3.The respondent herein who was working as an Assistant E Law Officer, was served with a charge-sheet on 14.8.1992 alleging that he had exceeded his power by directing implementation of an arbitration award dated 10.9.1991 without getting approval of the superior Authorities. Respondent filed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.