Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - (1.) Balbir Singh, the petitioner has filed the present petition praying for directions to quash the punishment order dated 12.4.2010 (Annexure P -6) as also the orders dated 26.4.2011 and 13.7.2011 (Annexure P -8 and P -10), whereby, the statutory first and second appeals respectively filed by him were dismissed. He has also prayed that he be directed to be considered for promotion as Assistant Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer from the date his juniors have been so promoted.
(2.) The facts, as narrated in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer on 18.5.1984. On 18.4.2002, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer in the quota of degree holders as he had passed AMIE. Vide letter dated 13.6.2007, the petitioner was issued charge -sheet (Annexure P -1) on the allegation that he allowed to issue PTW on H2 cooler booster pump -I on 8.2.2007 without prior approval of his XEN, thus violating specific instructions and putting costly plant equipment to risk, he did not ensure at site that the inlet and outlet valves of H2 cooler booster Pump -1 B are not closed thereby stopping the flow of water to the generator for hydrogen cooling and that he did not inform the control room about the stoppage in the flow of water to the generator at site. It was also alleged that he did not take timely action to restore/ regulate the supply of cooler water for H2 cooling in the generator thereby putting costly plant equipment to risk and the Unit -1 was forced tripped on 8.2.2007. The petitioner submitted his reply on 12.9.2007 (Annexure P -2). Sh.Surender Chhokar was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry, who submitted his report on 16.9.2009 (Annexure P -3) in which the negligence and irresponsible attitude was proved. It was established that the consent of the Shift Charge Engineer was not taken for issuing PTW and that too in a case where no standby to the service would be available. This much was admitted by the petitioner himself in his reply to the charge sheet. No anticipatory arrangements were planned to check the emergency. But as there had been no loss to the equipment, the enquiry officer recommended that a lenient view be taken.
(3.) Show -cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 18.12.2009 (Annexure P -4) to which he submitted his reply on 12.1.2010 (Annexure P -5). After considering the same and giving him a personal hearing, and in view of the fact that there was no loss to the equipment and taking note of the assurance of the petitioner to be careful in future, the punishing authority vide order dated 12.4.2010 (Annexure P -6) awarded him punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect. His ACR for the year in question was also down -graded by one step. The petitioner filed statutory appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure P -8). His second appeal was dismissed as being not maintainable vide order dated 13.7.2011 (Annexure P -10). Regulation 13 of the Punishment and Appeal Regulations dated 13.9.1990 was relied on as per which the second appeal would lie where the appellate authority other than the Board enhances penalty inflicted by any subordinate authority. There being no enhancement of penalty in his case, the second appeal was held to be not maintainable.;