- (1.) This order shall dispose of LPA Nos.980, 924, 1135, 1427 and 1447 of 2013 as the factual matrix and the legal issue involved therein are identical. However, the facts have been extracted from LPA No.980 of 2013. All these appeals have been filed against common judgment dated 30.1.2013 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants against imposition of penalty of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect and expunction of adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential reports have been dismissed.
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy as available on record of LPA No.980 of 2013 may be noticed. The appellant was appointed as Fireman on 19.10.1992 on regular basis in accordance with law. Respondent No.3 while working as Chief Fire Officer started harassing the Firemen including the appellant for one reason or the other. They made a complaint against respondent No.3 before the respondent authorities. Since no action was taken, they submitted a complaint to respondent No.1 to investigate the matter and take action against respondent No.3. On 9.3.2005, Annexure P.2, various Firemen submitted a complaint against respondent No.3 before the State Vigilance Bureau, Panchkula alleging that respondent No.3 purchased substandard quality of uniforms from M/s Duni Chand and Sons, Main Bazar, Panipat. When no action was taken, they made a complaint to the higher authorities and ultimately FIR was lodged against respondent No.3. On 4.1.2006, Annexure P.3, various Firemen including the appellant made a complaint before the police authorities alleging that Shri Rajinder Singh Yant in connivance with respondent No.3 tampered the official record and showed his date of birth as 13.8.1956 instead of 13.8.1952 and had got the appointment letter for the post of Fire Operator. FIR No.28 dated 23.1.2006, Anenxure P.4 against Shri Rajinder Singh Yant and respondent No.3 was registered. The respondent authorities issued charge sheet dated 30.4.2008, Annexure P.5 to the appellant alleging that he had refused to accept the uniform cloth/items inspite of repeated reminders. It was also alleged that he indulged in notorious activities by making complaints against his superiors. Similar complaints were also made against other Firemen. The appellant submitted reply to the charge sheet and denied the allegations Thereafter, the respondent authorities appointed Enquiry Officer who conducted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 2.5.2009, Anenxure P.7 to the effect that the charges levelled against the officials did not stand established. According to the appellant, copy of the enquiry report was neither supplied by the Enquiry Officer nor by the department. On 24.6.2009, Annexure P.8, the respondent authorities issued show cause notice to the appellant stating that the competent authority had decided to impose punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect under Rule 7 read with Rule 4(A) (1) of the Erstwhile HSEB Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1990. The respondent authorities without recording any dissenting note to the report of the Enquiry Officer issued the said show cause notice. Vide memo dated 27.7.2009, Annexure P.9, orders for stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect were issued. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed appeal before the competent authority. Vide letter dated 27.9.2007, Annexure P.10, adverse remarks for the year 2005-06 were communicated to the appellant. Similarly, adverse remarks were also communicated to the appellant for the period from 1.4.2006 to 31.3.2007. The appellant submitted a detailed representation dated 11.1.2008, Annexure P.12 for expunction of the adverse remarks. Respondent No.3 again recorded adverse remarks in the ACR of the appellant for the period from 1.4.2007 to 31.3.2008 and communicated the same to him vide letter dated 2.7.2008, Annexure P.13. The representation submitted by the appellant was rejected by the respondent authorities vide order dated 24.7.2008, Annexure P.15 but the said order was never communicated to the appellant nor an opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached this Court through CWP No.15827 of 2010 challenging the impugned orders. The respondentauthorities raised the plea that since the appeal filed by the appellant against the show cause notice was pending, the writ petition was premature. Vide order dated 13.10.2011, this Court directed the respondent authorities to decide the appeal filed by the appellant within two weeks from the date of passing of the order and communicate the order to the appellant. One of the similarly situated employee Satbir Singh also filed COCP No.3097 of 2011. Ultimately vide order dated 16.5.2012, Annexure P.16, the respondent authorities rejected the claim of the appellant and communicated the order to him. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants in all these appeals filed writ petitions in this Court. Vide order dated 30.1.2013 impugned herein, the writ petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge. Hence the present Letters Patent Appeals.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that copy of the enquiry report was not given to the appellant. Further, no dissenting note of the punishing authority was recorded inspite of the fact that the allegations against the appellant did not stand proved during the enquiry. It was also urged that no reasons disagreeing with the enquiry report had been assigned by the punishing authority. Thus, the order dated 16.5.2012 (Annexure P.16) impugned was violative of the principles of natural justice. The order was also assailed on the ground that it was not a speaking one.;