Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6150  OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5230 of 2013]

D.H.B.V.N.L. Vidyut Nagar, Hisar & Others ..  

Appellants

Versus

Yashvir Singh Gulia .. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is  

whether once a charge-sheet has been issued for imposition of a  

major penalty under Regulation 7 of the Haryana State Electricity  

Board Employees (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1990 [for  

short “the Regulations 1990”], is it obligatory on the part of the

Page 2

2

Disciplinary  Authority  to  conduct  a  full  fledged  departmental  

inquiry even if, after considering the reply of the delinquent, the  

authority  decides  to  impose  a  minor  penalty,  for  which  no  

departmental inquiry is provided under the Regulations.   

3. The respondent herein who was working as an Assistant Law  

Officer,  was  served with  a  charge-sheet  on  14.8.1992 alleging  

that he had exceeded his power by directing implementation of  

an arbitration award dated 10.9.1991 without getting approval of  

the superior Authorities.    Respondent filed three replies to the  

charge-sheet and the replies submitted by the respondent were  

considered by the Board and it  was decided to  impose only a  

minor penalty vide its order dated 4.7.1994, the operative portion  

of which reads as follows:

“HARYANA STATE ELECY. BOARD

OFFICE ORDER NO. 144/COMF-2407 DATED 4.7.94

Having  considered  the  reply  submitted  by  Sh.  Y.S.  Gulia, A.L.O. through his letters dated 20.1.93, 24.1.94  & dated 27.4.94 to the charge sheet served upon him  vide this office Memo No.  Ch-4/Conf-2497 (IB-2(1010)  dt.  14.8.92  in  light  of  the  comments  given  by  L.B.,  BSEB,  Punchkula  through  his  note  dated  6.6.94  and

Page 3

3

record/material  available  with  this  office,  it  has  been  decided to stop his one increment without future effect  as Sh. Y.S. Gulia, ALO has been found responsible for  not  seeking  the  approval  of  L.R.,  HSEB,  Panchkula  before conveying the advice to Xen(OP) Divn.,  HSEB,  Gurgaon to implement the award dt. 30.9.91 amount to  Rs.26 lacs of the Arbitrator given in M/s. Kegg Farm.

As such one increment of Sh. Y.S. Gulia, Asstt. Law  is hereby stopped without future effect.

This  issues  with  the  approval  of  MA&PF,  HSEB,  Panchkula.”

4. Respondent  preferred  an  appeal  before  the  Appellate  

Authority of the Board.  The same was, however, rejected by the  

Appellate Authority vide its order dated 22.5.1995.

5. Respondent, after a lapse of 10 years, filed a Civil Suit No.  

157 of 2005 before the Civil Judge (JD), Gurgaon for a declaration  

that the order dated 4.7.1994 and the Appellate Authority’s order  

dated 22.5.1995 were illegal  and void  and also  for  mandatory  

injunction  directing  the  Board  to  refund  the  amount  of  one

Page 4

4

increment deducted from his salary with 18% interest.   The Civil  

Judge dismissed the suit vide his judgment dated 29.1.2009.

6. Aggrieved  by  the  same,  respondent  preferred  an  appeal  

being C.A. No. 34 of 2009 before the District Judge, Gurgaon.  It  

was contended before the learned District Judge that the Board  

had  committed  a  gross  illegality  in  not  holding  a  regular  

departmental  inquiry  after  having  initiated  major  penalty  

proceeding under Regulation 7 of the Regulations 1990.   This  

argument was accepted by the learned District Judge holding that  

having invoked Regulation 7, the Board should have conducted a  

regular  departmental  inquiry  and  inflicting  minor  punishment  

without  holding  a  regular  departmental  inquiry  was  illegal.  

Holding so, the order passed by the Civil Judge was set aside and  

the suit was decreed.

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the Board preferred R.S.A. No.  

3094 of 2011 before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.  The  

appeal was dismissed holding that no substantial question of law  

arose  for  its  consideration.   Further,  it  was  also  held  that  the  

Board  was  bound  to  hold  a  regular  departmental  inquiry  and

Page 5

5

minor  punishment  could  not  have  been  imposed  merely  

considering the reply submitted by the respondent.   Aggrieved  

by the same, this appeal has been preferred.

8. Shri Narender Hooda, Additional Advocate General appearing  

for  the Board,  submitted that  the  High Court  has  not  properly  

appreciated  the  scope  of  Regulations  1990.    Shri  Hooda  

submitted  that  the  Board  was  within  its  rights  in  not  holding  

regular departmental inquiry since it was decided to impose only  

a  minor  penalty  which  is  permissible  under  Regulations  1990.  

Shri  Hooda  also  submitted  that  the  rule  does  not  provide  for  

regular  departmental  inquiry  for  imposing  minor  punishment,  

consequently,  non-conducting  of  regular  departmental  inquiry  

against the respondent cannot be a reason for interfering with the  

punishment  imposed  by  the  Board  which  is  barring  of  one  

increment without cumulative effect.  Further, it was also pointed  

out  that  there was considerable delay in  approaching the Civil  

Court,  the  order  imposing  the  punishment  was  passed  on  

4.8.1994, but the suit was filed only after a period of 10 years i.e.  

13.6.2005 and hence the suit itself was barred by time.

Page 6

6

9. Ms.  Surbhi  Mehta,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

respondent,  on  the  other  hand,  submitted  that  there  is  no  

illegality  in  the  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  calling  for  

interference by this  Court.    Learned counsel  pointed out  that  

once the charge-sheet has been issued under Regulation 7, the  

Board is duty bound to conduct a regular departmental inquiry,  

since major penalty proceeding has been contemplated against  

the  respondent.    Learned  counsel  also  submitted  merely  by  

examining the replies submitted by the delinquent, the authority  

cannot  impose  a  minor  penalty  without  holding  a  regular  

departmental inquiry.  The High Court,  according to the learned  

counsel,  was,  therefore,  justified  in  not  interfering  with  the  

judgment of the learned District Judge.

10. We have heard  the  counsel  on  either  side  and examined  

various  contentions  raised  by  them.    In  order  to  properly  

appreciate  the  various  contentions  raised  and  to  examine  the  

correctness or otherwise the views expressed by the High Court,  

it  is  necessary  to  examine  the  relevant  provisions  of  the  

Regulations 1990.  Regulations 1990 was issued by the Board in

Page 7

7

exercise of its power conferred under Clause (c) of Section 79 of  

the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 for governing the conditions of  

the service of the employees of the Board.   The term “Punishing  

Authority” has been defined under Regulation 2(g) as an authority  

notified  under  the  Service  Regulations  to  inflict  on  a  Board  

employee  any  of  the  penalties  specified  in  Regulation  4.  

Regulation 4 deals  with  both minor  penalties  as well  as  major  

penalties.  The relevant portion of Regulation 4 is extracted for an  

easy reference:

“4.  PENALTIES:

The  following  penalties  may,  for  good  and  sufficient  reasons,  and  as  hereinafter  provided,  be  inflicted on an employee:-

A. MINOR PENALTIES  : (i) Warning with a copy to be placed in the personal/

(Character roll) File; (ii) Censure; (iii) Withholding/stoppage if increments of pay without  

cumulative effect; (iv) Withholding of promotion for a specific period;

Page 8

8

(v) Recover  from  pay  of  the  whole  or  part  of  any  pecuniary loss, caused by negligence or breach of  orders of the Board or Central  Government or a  State Government or to a Company Association or  body of individuals, whether incorporated or not,  which  is  wholly  or  substantially  owned  or  controlled by Government or to a local authority  set-up by an Act of Parliament or the Legislature of  a State, during discharge of official duty.

B. MAJOR PENALTIES:   (vi) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay  

for a specified period, with further directions as to  whether or not the employee will earn increments  of  pay  during  the  period  of  such  reduction  and  whether  on  the  expiry  of  such  period,  the  reduction will or will not have the effect of post- pending the future increments of his pay.

(vii) Reduction to a lower scale of pay or grade, post or  service,  which  shall  ordinarily  be  a  bar  to  the  promotion of  the employee to  the time scale of  pay or grade or post or service, from which he was  reduced  with  or  without  further  directions  regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or  post  or  service  from  which  the  employee  was

Page 9

9

reduced and seniority and pay on such restoration  to that grade or post or service;

(viii) Compulsory retirement; (ix) Removal  from  service  which  shall  not  be  a  

disqualification for  future employment under the  Board;

(x) Dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a  disqualification for  future employment under the  Board/State Govt./State Govt. Undertakings.”

The  procedure  for  inflicting  major  penalties  is  provided  in  

Regulation  7.   The  relevant  portion  of  the  same  is  extracted  

hereunder:

“7.   PROCEDURE FOR INFLICTING MAJOR PENALTIES: (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Public  

Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850; no order of inflicting a  major penalty, shall  be passed against a person to  whom these Regulations are applicable unless he has  been  given  a  reasonable  opportunity  of  showing  cause  against  the  action  proposed  to  be  taken  in  regard to him.

(2) (a) The grounds on which it is proposed to  take  such  action,  shall  be  reduced  to  the  form of  definite  charge  or  charges  which  shall  be  communicated  in  writing  to  the  person  charged,

Page 10

10

together  with  a  statement  of  allegations  on  which  each charge is based alongwith a list of documents  and  witnesses  to  be  relied-upon  and  of  any  other  circumstances  which  it  is  proposed  to  take  into  consideration in passing orders on the case and he  shall be required within a reasonable time to state in  writing whether he admits the truth of all or any, of  the charges, what explanation of defence, if any, he  has to offer and whether he desires to be heard in  person.   If  he  so  desires,  or  if  the  authority  empowered  to  inflict  major  penalty  upon  him  so  directs,  an  enquiry  shall  be  held  at  which  all  evidence(s) shall be heard as to such of the charges  as are not admitted.”

The  procedure  for  inflicting  minor  penalties  is  proved  in  

Regulation 8, which reads as follows:

“8.  PROCEDURE FOR INFLICTING MINOR PENALTIES:

(a) Without  prejudice  to  the  provisions  of  Regulations 7, an order for inflicting minor penalty shall  not  be  passed  on  an  employee  unless  he  has  been  given  a  show-cause  notice  thereof  and  a  reasonable  opportunity of making representation there-against.   If  he  requests  for  access  to  relevant  record  it  may  be  allowed  and  opportunity  of  personal  hearing  be  also

Page 11

11

given. Request for personal hearing may be rejected by  the punishing authority by passing a speaking order.

(b) Provided that this condition shall not apply in  a case where an order based on facts, has led to his  conviction  in  a  Criminal  Court  or  an  order  has  been  passed superseding him for promotion to a higher post  on the grounds of his unfitness for that post on account  of the existence of unsatisfactory record.”

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 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

Page 12

12

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

Page 13

13

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.

14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the  

learned District  Judge as  well  as  that  of  the  High Court  is  set  

aside.  

15. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that, by virtue  

of  the  punishment  imposed,  he  has  not  been  given  his  due  

promotion.  We  are  of  the  view  that  if  imposition  of  a  minor  

penalty is not a bar in granting promotion to the respondent, due  

promotion be granted to him in accordance with the Rules and  

Regulations applicable to him.

……………………………..J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

Page 14

14

……………………………..J. (Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

New Delhi, July 30, 2013