Swatanter Kumar, J. - (1.) IN this regular second appeal the main contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the judgments of the Courts below are contrary to the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1990(6) S.L.R. 73. It is contended that the learned Courts below have committed an error in law while deciding the case, therefore, substantial question of law arises for consideration in this regular second appeal.
(2.) PLAINTIFF Sham Sunder Sharma was appointed by the State Government in the department of Food and Supplies in the State of Haryana. The plaintiff contends that he discharged his duties honestly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. In fact his zeal to work honestly earned him the displeasure of some officers and he was served with the charge -sheet. Accordingly to the department, after conducting an enquiry punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner and adverse remarks were recorded in his annual confidential report for the year 1984 -85. While impugning the order of punishment, it is stated that the impugned punishment is a major penalty while the procedure provided under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules., 1987, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, was not adopted by the competent authority which is contrary to the statutory provisions and opposed to the provisions of natural justice. No opportunity to defend was granted to the delinquent. The appeal of the plaintiff was also dismissed vide order dated 2.7.1990. plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the said two orders were null and void and as such were liable to be set aside and the plaintiff was entitled to all consequential reliefs. The suit was contested by the defendants who took up the stand that there were serious charges against the plaintiff. Show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff. His reply dated 14.10.1985 was considered and after taking the comments of District Food and Supplies Officer, Gurgaon, the impugned orders were passed which were otherwise in accordance with law. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 30.9.1998 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The Court held that the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & appeal) Rules, 1952 were applicable and it was not mentioned in the said rules that stoppage of increments with cumulative effect was a major penalty. Unsuccessful plaintiff preferred an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 4.8.1999 giving rise to this regular second appeal.
(3.) IT may be noticed at the very outset that the trial Court had framed the following issues : - 1. Whether the order dated 27.8.1986 and 2.7.1990 passed by defendant is illegal, null and void ? OPP. 2. Whether the suit is within limitation ? OPP 3. Whether the jurisdiction of civil Court is barred ? OPD 4. Relief. The learned Court answered other issues in favour of the plaintiff, but denied relief under Issue No. 1. It may be noticed that in the case of Kulwant Singh Gill (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was conferred with the interpretation of somewhat similar rules i.e. Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, where under Rule 5 withholding of increment of pay like the present one, was stated to be a minor punishment. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that once there was stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, it could never be stated to be a punishment falling under the cause relating to minor penalty which the department can impose upon its employee.;