Minor penalty after a major-penalty charge-sheet requires recorded satisfaction, inquiry dispensation, and a speaking order.

The respondent-plaintiff, a Junior Engineer (Field) employed with UHBVNL, was served with a charge-sheet under Regulation 7 of the UHBVNL (HSEB) Employee (P&A) Regulations, 1990, proposing major penalty proceedings.

After receiving his reply, the competent authority imposed the minor penalty of stoppage of two increments without future effect by order dated 29.05.2001, without conducting a departmental enquiry.

The plaintiff’s statutory appeal was dismissed on 06.02.2002, following which he filed a suit for declaration challenging the punishment order.

The trial Court decreed the suit, declaring the punishment order null, void and illegal, and granting consequential benefits with interest.

The First Appellate Court affirmed the decree, leading UHBVNL to file the present Regular Second Appeal against concurrent findings.

Whether, after serving an employee with a charge-sheet proposing a major penalty under Regulation 7 of the 1990 Regulations, the competent authority could impose a minor penalty without conducting a departmental enquiry.

Whether the punishment order was legally valid when it did not record the competent authority’s opinion that no major punishment was called for and that the holding of an enquiry was consequently dispensed with.

The Court applied Regulation 7(8) of the UHBVNL (HSEB) Employee (P&A) Regulations, 1990, which permits the competent authority, after receiving and considering the employee’s reply to a charge-sheet proposing a major penalty, to conclude that no major punishment is called for, dispense with the enquiry, and impose a minor penalty by a speaking order.

The provision therefore requires satisfaction of three safeguards: a formed opinion that major punishment is unnecessary, a consequent decision to dispense with the enquiry, and imposition of the minor penalty through a speaking order.

The Court relied on D.H.B.V.N.L. Vidyut Nagar, Hisar v. Yashvir Singh Gulia, 2013 (11) SCC 173, which upheld the power to impose a minor penalty without a full departmental enquiry where Regulation 7(8) was complied with.

It distinguished Dr. K.G. Tiwari v. State of Haryana, 2002 (4) SLR 329, because that decision concerned different service rules—the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 and the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970.

The Court accepted UHBVNL’s legal contention that Regulation 7(8) permitted the competent authority to impose a minor penalty after a charge-sheet proposing a major penalty, without holding a full departmental enquiry.

However, the power was conditional. The punishment order dated 29.05.2001 merely imposed stoppage of two increments and did not record that, upon consideration of the plaintiff’s reply, the competent authority had formed the opinion that no major punishment was called for or that the enquiry was being dispensed with on that basis.

Although the order was required to reflect these mandatory safeguards, it contained no such satisfaction or reasoning.

Consequently, the order did not comply with Regulation 7(8), notwithstanding the existence of a power to impose the minor penalty without an enquiry.

Nevertheless, the impugned punishment order was invalid because it failed to record the mandatory satisfaction that no major punishment was called for and that the enquiry was therefore dispensed with.

The Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, and the judgments and decrees of the trial Court and First Appellate Court declaring the punishment order dated 29.05.2001 illegal were affirmed.