K.C. Puri, J. - (1.) SINCE common questions of fact and law are involved in this Regular Second Appeal and the connected Regular Second Appeal No. 2165 of 1986, titled Yog Raj Mittal, since deceased through his legal representatives v. State of Punjab and Ors., therefore , both these Regular Second Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. Facts have, however, been taken from Regular Second Appeal No. 2164 of 1986.
(2.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that order dated 12.8.1976 issued by defendant No. 3 imposing penalty of withholding of two increments with future effect and recovery of Rs. 215/75P and further order of defendant No. 2 dated 26.10.1978 vide which penalties imposed upon the plaintiff were confirmed, were illegal, void, ultra vires, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against the rules and instructions, against the principles of natural justice and not binding upon him and that he is entitled to all the arrears of increments with all consequential reliefs. The plaintiff averred that he was charge -sheeted under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970 (in short the Rules) vide letter dated 3.2.1976 of defendant No. 3. He submitted his reply to the charge sheet which was considered unsatisfactory and defendant No. 3 imposed the said penalty. He preferred an appeal against the impugned punishment order which was also rejected by defendant No. 2. He termed these orders as nonspeaking. He further pleaded that no inquiry was conducted before imposing punishments; that the procedure under Rule 8 of the Rules was not adopted; that no show cause notice was served and no personal hearing was given before imposing these penalties; that with -holding of increments with future effect was not provided in the rules and cannot be imposed and that the Punishing Authority had acted as per comments of the Lower Officer and the same were not disclosed to him.
(3.) THE defendants contested the suit and raised some preliminary objections. On merits, it was pleaded that lenient view was taken by resorting to Section 5(iv) read with Rule 10 of the Rules. Minor penalty was imposed after taking into consideration the reply of the plaintiff to the charge -sheet.;