- (1.) Order (Annexure P-3) passed by the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, whereby the petitioner has been punished with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect as well as the Order (Annexure P-5) by which the rejection of appeal of the petitioner was conveyed to him deserve to be quashed on two short grounds, which I shall set out hereinunder.
(2.) Notice (Annexure P-1) was issued to the petitioner on 20.6.1988 with a proposal to take action against him under Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1987. The petitioner submitted his reply (Annexure P-2). Without any further enquiry, the Director, Higher Education, passed the order (Annexure P-3) dated 16.11.1988 and imposed penalty of withholding of two increments of the petitioner with cumulative effect. Petitioner filed a detailed appeal under Rule 9 of the 1987 Rules and the same has been rejected vide order Annexure P-5.
(3.) It is admitted position that no regular departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner for imposing a major penalty on him. In Kulwant Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 1991 2 SCT 30, the Supreme Court has held that withholding of increments with cumulative effect is a major punishment and such punishment cannot be awarded without a regular departmental enquiry under the relevant service rules. In view of the fact that no enquiry was held against the petitioner for inflicting the major penalty the order Annexure P-3 is liable to be quashed.;