Pradeep Kant, Ajay Kumar Singh, JJ. - (1.) Since the affidavits have been exchanged and the matter relates to the disciplinary proceedings, in which the following punishments have been awarded, we proceed to dispose of the petition finally. (i) Recovery of Rs. 1,30,329.50; (ii) Stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect permanently; (iii) Censure.
(2.) The petitioner, who is an Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department, challenges the aforesaid order of punishment on various grounds but the following two grounds are sufficient to hold that the enquiry has not been conducted in the required manner and, therefore, the impugned punishment order cannot be sustained. (i) the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments permanently is a major punishment, which could not have been awarded without holding formal disciplinary proceedings by giving opportunity to the petitioner, and; (ii) in the enquiry, no date, time and place was fixed for adducing evidence and only question put to the petitioner was, 'whether he wants to say something else in addition to what he had stated in his written reply', without leading evidence by the department.
(3.) In the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1991 SCC (L&S) 998 , the Apex Court held that award of punishment of stoppage of three annual increments permanently is a major punishment and since in the instant case no enquiry was conducted and after sub-mission of the reply to the charge sheet, the aforesaid punishment has been awarded, therefore, the same cannot be sustained.;