Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs Raj Kumar Wadhwan
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
135
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 3397 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 07.09.2026
Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through
its Managing Director, Panchkula and another
.......... Appellants
Versus
Raj Kumar Wadhwan
.......... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Pardeep Singh Poonia, Senior Advocate, assisted by
S/Sh. Gaurav Lamba; Mukul Malik; Yudhveer Hooda;
Pulkit Dhanda; and Dharam Pal Saini, Advocates
for the appellants-defendants.
Mr. Jitender K. Goel, Advocate
for the respondent-plaintiff.
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
The defendants-Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (for
short “UHBVNL”) filed the present Regular Second Appeal, assailing the
judgment and decree dated 20.03.2008 passed by the Court of learned
Additional District Judge, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as “First
Appellate Court”) , whereby its appeal against the judgment and decree
dated 20.02.2006 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Karnal (hereinafter referred to as “trial Court”) decreeing the
suit for declaration filed at the instance of respondent-plaintiff (Raj Kumar
Wadhwan), was dismissed.
DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.14 18:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RSA No. 3397 of 2008 (O&M) -2-
[2] In short, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, while
decreeing the suit of plaintiff, were affirmed by the learned First Appellate
Court; thus present appeal is against concurrent findings of both the Courts
below.
[3] The trial Court record has been perused. For the sake of
convenience, the parties are being referred to as per their status in the Civil
Suit.
FACTS
[4] Briefly stating, the plaintiff was working as a Junior Engineer
(Field) in the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, UHBVNL, Neval, in
March, 2000, when he was served with a charge-sheet under Regulation 7 of
UHBVNL (HSEB) Employee (P&A) Regulations, 1990 (hereinafter
referred to as “Regulations, 1990”) issued by defendant No. 2 vide Memo
dated 27.03.2000. The plaintiff submitted his reply to the said charge-sheet.
However, without following the procedure prescribed under the relevant
Punishment and Appeal Regulations, defendant No. 2 passed an order of
punishment dated 29.05.2001, whereby two increments of the plaintiff were
stopped without future effect. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the
order of punishment dated 29.05.2001 before the Managing Director,
UHBVNL, which came to be rejected vide order dated 06.02.2002 . Hence,
the suit was filed.
[5] Upon notice of the suit, the defendants filed their written
statement, wherein it was pleaded that the charge-sheet was served upon the
plaintiff on the basis of the enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Party and
comments offered by the Executive Engineer, City Division No.1, Karnal
DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.14 18:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RSA No. 3397 of 2008 (O&M) -3-
vide memo dated 06.02.2001. It was further pleaded that the order of
punishment was passed after duly considering the reply to the charge-sheet
submitted by the plaintiff. Denying the other allegations, dismissal of the
suit was prayed.
[6] Since the parties were at variance, the learned trial Court framed
the following issues:-
“ (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for declaration
on the grounds mentioned in the plaint as prayed
for?OPP
(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file and
maintain the present suit ? OPD
(4) Relief. ”
[7] On appraisal of evidence led by the parties, the learned trial
Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 20.02.2006, decreed the suit of the
plaintiff as follows:-
“ ISSUE NO. 4 (RELIEF)
14. Keeping in view my above discussion, plaintiff has
succeeded in proving that his two increments have been stopped
vide an illegal order. So, same is set aside and a decree
declaring the impugned order dated 29.5.2001, whereby two
annual increments of the plaintiff were stopped, is null, void and
illegal and holding plaintiff entitled to the benefits of increments
alongwith interest at the rate of 6% p.a. is passed in favour of
the plaintiff and against the defendants with costs. Decree-sheet
be prepared accordingly, undisbursed amount be disbursed.
Filed be consigned to record room, after due compliance. ”
[8] Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2006
passed by the learned trial Court, the defendants-UHBVNL preferred an
DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.14 18:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RSA No. 3397 of 2008 (O&M) -4-
appeal, which also came to be dismissed vide judgment and decree dated
20.03.2008 by the learned First Appellate Court. Hence, the present Regular
Second Appeal.
CONTENTION(S):
ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS–DEFENDANTS
[9] Assailing the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts
below, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that the
judgments passed by the Courts below are contrary to the relevant
Regulations, 1990, which govern the services of respondent and thus, the
same are liable to be set aside.
[9.1] Learned Senior Counsel contends that as per Regulation 7 (8) of
the Regulations, 1990, in case an employee, who was served a charge-sheet
in relation to major penalty and was called upon to file reply; in case the
competent authority being satisfied, dispensed with the holding of enquiry,
the minor penalty could be inflicted straightway as laid down in Clause (i) to
(v) of ibid Regulation by a speaking order. In support, reliance has been
placed upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
“D.H.B.V.N.L. Vidyut Nagar, Hisar & Others Versus Yashvir Singh
Gulia” , 2013(11) SCC 173 .
Learned Senior Counsel thus prays for setting aside the
impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below.
No other point has been urged.
ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF
[10] Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
plaintiff supports the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. He
DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.14 18:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RSA No. 3397 of 2008 (O&M) -5-
submits that the procedure prescribed under the applicable Regulations was
not followed. Learned counsel also relies upon the judgment referred to by
the Courts below in case(s) titled “ Dr. K.G. Tiwari Versus State of
Haryana” , 2002(4) SLR 329.
[10.1] Learned counsel thus submits, that the learned Courts below
having appreciated the entire pleadings and evidence available on record,
rightly decreed the suit of plaintiff while dismissing the appeal filed by the
defendants. He thus prays for dismissal of the present appeal.
DISCUSSION AND REASONING
[11] After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone
through the paper-book / records, I am unable to find substance in the
submission(s) made on behalf of the appellants-defendants/UHBVNL.
[12] In the present case, the appellant was working as Junior
Engineer (Field) in the Office of SDO (OP), Sub-Division UHBVNL, Neval,
when he was charge-sheeted under Regulation 7 of the Regulations, 1990
(Ex.P2) for major penalty in the month of March 2000. However, upon
receipt of reply to the charge-sheet from the respondent, the appellants vide
its order dated 29.05.2001(Ex.P3) imposed minor penalty of stoppage of two
increments without future effect upon the respondent-plaintiff. Although,
the statutory appeal against the said order was also filed, however, the same
was dismissed. Aggrieved thereof, a suit for declaration came to be filed at
the instance of respondent-plaintiff. The learned trial Court and the
Appellate Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent-plaintiff.
[13] The short question which arises for consideration in the present
appeal is whether, after serving a charge-sheet upon an employee proposing
DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.14 18:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RSA No. 3397 of 2008 (O&M) -6-
major penalty under the Regulations, 1990, the competent authority, upon
consideration of his reply to the charge-sheet, could impose a minor penalty
while dispensing with the holding of a departmental enquiry.
[13.1] On the aforesaid legal issue, though the learned Courts below,
while relying upon the decision rendered in Dr. K.G. Tiwari’s case (surpa) ,
decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, however, in the considered opinion
of this Court, the proposition of law laid down in the said case was not
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The said
decision was rendered in the context of the Haryana Civil Services
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 and the Punjab Civil Services
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, whereas, in the present case, the
services of the respondent-plaintiff were governed by the Regulations 1990,
wherein sub-Regulation (8) of Regulation 7 specifically empowered the
competent authority to impose any of the minor penalties by passing a
speaking order upon consideration of the reply to the charge-sheet. The
aforesaid sub-Regulation (8) of Regulation 7 was specifically considered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Yashvir Singh Gulia’s case (supra) , wherein
the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically upheld the power of the competent
authority to dispense with a full-fledged departmental enquiry and impose a
minor penalty after considering the reply to the charge-sheet. Relevant paras
11 to 13 of the said decision are extracted hereunder:-
“11. The abovementioned provisions would indicate that an
employee can be charge-sheeted for inflicting major penalties as
well as minor penalties. In a given case even if a major penalty
has been proposed on getting the reply from the delinquent, if
the competent authority feels that no major penalty proceeding
need be initiated, it can always switch over to initiate
DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.14 18:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RSA No. 3397 of 2008 (O&M) -7-
proceeding for inflicting minor penalties. Such a power is
conferred on the Board vide Sub-regulation 8 of Regulation 7,
which reads as follows:
“7(8). Where an employee has been charge-sheeted
under this regulation and the Competent Authority,
on receipt of his reply to the charge sheet is of the
opinion that no major punishment as laid down in
Regulation-4 (vi to x) is called for, it may dispense
with the holding of enquiry and inflict straight-away
any of the minor penalties as laid down in Clause (i)
to (v) of the ibid Regulation by a speaking order.”
12. Above referred regulations, especially Regulation 7(8)
clearly indicates that the competent authority has got the power
to dispense with the procedure for holding a departmental
inquiry, even though it had contemplated major penalty
proceedings, on being satisfied with the reply submitted by the
delinquent officer. In such a case, it can always follow the
procedure for imposing minor penalty. Minor penalty, as per the
Regulation, can be inflicted without holding any departmental
inquiry, by giving only a show-cause-notice and a reasonable
opportunity to make a representation to the show-cause-notice.
Personal hearing can also be afforded and also can be
dispensed with by a speaking order.
13. We are of the view that the procedure referred to
hereinbefore has been followed by the Board. The delinquent
officer was given an opportunity to submit his reply to the show-
cause-notice which was considered and the Board took a
conscious decision to impose only a minor penalty, i.e. barring
one increment without cumulative effect, for which no full-
fledged departmental inquiry is contemplated. Learned District
Judge as well as the High Court, in our view, has committed a
grave error in interfering with the punishment imposed by the
Board which, in our view, is perfectly legal, going by the
regulations referred to hereinbefore.”
DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.14 18:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RSA No. 3397 of 2008 (O&M) -8-
[13.2] Thus, in such circumstances, the reasoning recorded by the
learned Courts below to the effect that the punishing authority was not
competent to impose a minor penalty upon an employee who had been
served with a charge-sheet proposing major penalties, without holding a
regular departmental enquiry, cannot be sustained in law. The said finding is
contrary to the provisions contained in sub-Regulation (8) of Regulation 7 of
the Regulations, 1990.
[14] Having expressed the viewpoint on the legal issue in favour of
the appellants, yet the order of punishment dated 29.05.2001 passed by the
appellants against respondent-plaintiff is legally unsustainable. At this stage,
it would be necessary to recapitulate sub-Regulation (8) of Regulation 7 of
the Regulations 1990, which reads as under:-
“7(8). Where an employee has been charge-sheeted under this
Regulation and the Competent Authority, on receipt of his reply
to the charge-sheet, is of the opinion that no major punishment
as laid down in Regulation 4 (vi to x) is called for, it may
dispense with the holding of enquiry and inflict straight-away
any of the minor penalties as laid down in clauses (i) to (v) of
the ibid Regulation by a speaking order.”
[14.1] A bare reading of the aforesaid sub-Regulation makes it clear
that even where an employee has been served with a charge-sheet proposing
imposition of a major penalty, the competent authority, upon receipt and
consideration of his reply, if is of the opinion that no major punishment is
called for, it may dispense with the holding of enquiry and straightaway
inflict any of the minor penalties, by passing a speaking order.
[14.2] In the present case, the order of punishment dated 29.05.2001
passed by the appellants against the respondent-plaintiff regarding
DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.14 18:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RSA No. 3397 of 2008 (O&M) -9-
imposition of minor penalty in the shape of stoppage of two increments
without future effect nowhere records that the holding of enquiry was
dispensed with as the competent authority, upon consideration of the reply to
the charge-sheet, was of the opinion that no major punishment, as
contemplated under the relevant Regulations, was called for. Thus, the
requisite satisfaction contemplated under sub-Regulation (8) of Regulation 7
was not in the order of punishment. Accordingly, no such satisfaction as
required under sub-Regulation (8) of Regulation (7) was recorded.
[14.3] In such circumstances, the order dated 29.05.2001 having not
been passed in accordance with two of the three safeguards inscribed in sub-
Regulation (8) of Regulation 7 was wholly uncalled. The said sub-
Regulation empowers the competent authority to pass a punishment order
regarding minor penalty, upon receipt of reply from the employee, who has
been served with a charge-sheet, proposing major penalties, on completion
of the following conditions:-
(i) Upon receipt of reply to the charge-sheet, the
competent authority is of the opinion that no major
punishment under the relevant regulations is called for;
(ii) on the basis of the aforesaid opinion, the competent
authority may assent to dispense with the holding of
enquiry and inflict straightaway any of the minor
penalties prescribed under the Regulations;
(iii) the imposition of minor penalties must be by way of a
speaking order.
DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.14 18:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
RSA No. 3397 of 2008 (O&M) -10-
[14.4] In the present case, the aforesaid (i) and (ii)
safeguards/conditions have not been fulfilled in the order dated 29.05.2001
as it nowhere contains any opinion expressed by the competent authority that
upon receipt of reply to the charge-sheet submitted by the respondent-
plaintiff, no major punishment under the relevant regulation was called for,
besides the said order of punishment does not record any opinion of the
competent authority that in view of such conclusion, the holding of enquiry
was required to be dispensed with.
[14.5] Consequently, t he order of punishment dated 29.05.2001 passed
by the appellants, imposing the minor penalty of stoppage of two increments
without future effect, is held to be legally unsustainable for non-compliance
with the mandatory requirements of sub-Regulation (8) of Regulation 7 of
the Regulations, 1990.
[15] In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the present appeal
is dismissed . The impugned judgments and decrees dated 20.02.2006 &
20.03.2008 passed by the learned trial Court and First Appellate Court
respectively are hereby affirmed. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
[16] Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
September 07, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra'
JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
DINESH KUMAR
2026.09.14 18:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document