S. P. Goyal, J. - (1.) Harchand Singh, Appellant, when employed as Accounts Clerk, was charge-sheeted for the loss of Government record and a departmental enquiry was ordered against him by the Superintending Engineer/After the enquiry, he was served with a show-cause notice, Exhibit P- l together with a copy of the statement of allegations, Exhibit P-2, to show-cause as to why his three increments with future effect may not be stopped. The explanation submitted by him did not find favour with the Superintending Engineer and order, Exhibit P-4, was passed stopping his one increment with future effect. He challenged this order by way of this suit on two grounds, namely, that he was never supplied copies of the enquiry report and the statements of the witnesses and that the impugned order was not a speaking order. The trial Court accepted his pleas and decreed the suit vide judgment dated May 19, 1971. However, on appeal, the lower Appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the suit vide judgment dated June 8, 1972. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff has come up in this second appeal.
(2.) The impugned order consists of five-six lines and is reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:- "Shri Harchand Singh, Accounts Clerks attached to Patiala Drainage Division, Patiala, has been found responsible for the loss of personal register of Shri Chhavinder Singh, Clerk and Service Book of Shri Dwarka Dass, Peon. He is, therefore, awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect." A bare look at this order would show that it is a non-speaking order and no reasons have been given for rejecting the explanation submitted by the appellant. The learned Additional District Judge, however, upheld this order on the ground that a regular enquiry was conducted against the appellant and, therefore, the punishing authority was not required to pass a detailed order. In the earlier part of the judgment, the learned Additional District Judge said that as minor punishment was proposed to be awarded, it was not necessary to supply the appellant with copies of the enquiry report and the statements of the witnesses, There is obviously a contradiction between these two observations. If reliance was to be placed on the enquiry report then the appellant has to be supplied with its copy. On the contrary, if it was held that for a minor punishment, no enquiry was necessary then as held in Dr. B. K. Talwar, Chief Medical officer, Gurgaon Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1970 S.L.R. 732 , the order rejecting the representation has to be a speaking order giving reasons for its rejection. In either case, the impugned order has been passed in contravention of the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, and therefore, has to be quashed.
(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Additional District Judge set aside and that of the trial Court restored. No costs. Appeal allowed.;