- (1.) The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 19.8.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner- respondent No. 1 and setting aside the order of punishment dated 19.9.2003 (P-6) passed by the punishing authority as well as order dated 16.4.2007 (P-8) passed by the Appellate Authority.
(2.) Brief and undisputed facts of the case are that while the petitioner- respondent No. I had been working as Executive Officer-cum-Secretary, Market Committee. A charge-sheet dated 26.06.2000 (P-1) was served upon him by the Chief Administrator. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula (for brevity, 'the appellant Board') with the allegations that he unauthorisedly allowed one Laxmi Devi, Sweepress, to over stay in service for a period of five years, one month and 25 days, when he was posted as Executive Officer-cum-Secretary in the Market Committee, Adampur, causing loss to the appellant Board. The petitioner-respondent No. 1 filed reply which did not find favour with the Disciplinary Authority and a regular departmental inquiry was held against him. On 31.12.2000, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report. On the basis of findings recorded in paras 1 to 11, the Enquiry Officer reached the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioner- respondent No. 1 were not prove (P-3). On 17.4.2002, the Disciplinary Authority, while disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner-respondent No. 1 as to why a penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect be not imposed upon him (P- 4). The so-called Dissenting Note recorded by the Disciplinary Authority also accompanied with the said notice and the same is reproduced as under: "DISSENTING NOTE I have gone through the enquiry report. The I.O. has not proved any charge. Shri K.L. Ahuja was charge sheeted under rule-7 for not retiring Smt. Laxmi Devi, Sweeper in Market Committee. Adampur. She was to retire in 1992 whereas she retired in 1998 after a gap of 5 years 1 month 25 days. I do not agree with enquiry report that the charges (against?) Shri Ahuja are not proved. I have gone through the enquiry proceedings file. The SMC had tried to shift the responsibility on his subordinates by saying that they did not put up the file to him. A senior officer may be negligent on some occasion but he cannot shift his responsibility on his subordinates for his own carelessness. It is crystal clear that Shri Ahuja was aware of the date of retirement as is evident from his correspondence made with Smt. Laxmi Devi which is available on enquiry file at CP-24. He was also aware of the affidavit and the report i of Civil Surgeon."
(3.) The petitioner-respondent No. 1 submitted his reply dated 25.5.2002 (P-5). On 19.9.2003, the Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect (P-6). The appeal preferred by the petitioner-respondent No. 1 was also rejected vide order dated 16.4.2007 (Annexure P- 8).;