Gagandeep v. State of Punjab and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(251) CWP No. 9030 of 2021 (O&M) Date of Decision : 02.09.2024 Gagandeep ...Petitioner Versus

State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Swapan Shorey, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. *** Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

¶1In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated

17.03.2021 (Annexure P-12) by which the benefit of selection grade given to the  petitioner   vide   order  dated   01.07.2015   (Annexure   P-11)  has  been withdrawn by the respondents and the recovery has been ordered.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from the claim on merit, the benefit once extended by the respondents themselves could not have been withdrawn without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in the present case, not even a show cause notice was issued before passing the impugned order dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure P-12) so as to withdraw the benefits extended to the petitioner vide order dated

01.07.2015 (Annexure P-11), which action of the respondents is arbitrary and

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the benefit extended to the petitioner  vide  order  dated  01.07.2015 (Annexure P-11) was in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 17953 of 2000 titled as Dr. K.K. Goyal and others  Vs.  The State of Punjab and another,  decided on 22.09.2008 and other connected cases, hence, even otherwise, the said benefit could not have been withdrawn and had the respondents given the petitioner a show cause notice before withdrawing the benefit of selection grade, all the objections to the proposal to withdraw the benefit extended to the petitioner vide order dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure P-11) would have been raised.

¶4Learned counsel for the respondents submits that once, the benefit of ad-hoc service rendered could not have been given for fixation of salary, the benefit of selection grade has rightly been withdrawn.

¶5I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

¶6It is a settled principle of law that no order causing prejudice to an employee can be passed without giving any opportunity of hearing, especially when the order passed causes financial prejudice to an employee. In the present case, the benefits which were extended to the petitioner vide order dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure P-11), have been withdrawn by the impugned order.  By the impugned order, the salary of the petitioner has been re-fixed and recovery has been ordered.  Once, the order dated 17.03.2021 (Annexure P-12) causes prejudice to the petitioner, the same could not have been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. %. #t is a settled principle of law settled  y the 9on: le Supre/e 0ourt of #ndia in 0ivil Appeal 2o. ((6- of (&"" titled as Cham$ i "istri.t C$/$0erati1e Ban2 Lt& thr$*gh its Se.retar%3Mahatiran&ha2 an& an$ther 1s. Ragh*nath Singh Rana an& $thers-  (&"6)"(, S00 (&5, decided on "%.&-.(&"6 and in 0ivil Appeal 2o. 35"% of (&"3 titled as M3s "a(($&i s )harma.e*ti.a s Lt&. an& an$ther 1s. State $( U.). an& an$ther (&"3 )"(, ;< (4', decided on "'."(.(&"3 that where any order passed  y the authority concerned causes prejudice to an e/ployee, especially financial lia ility, an opportunity of hearin$ is /ust and no order causin$ prejudice to an e/ployee can  e passed  y an e/ployer unilaterally. <he relevant para of "a(($&i s )harma.e*ti.a s's .ase (s*0ra! is as under:+ =15. In the present case, even if one assumes that Surender Chaudhary, the accused in the pending criminal case was involved and had sought to indulge in objectionable activities, that ipso facto could not have resulted in unilateral action of the kind which the State resorted to against Daffodils, which was never granted any opportunity of hearing or a chance to represent against the impugned order. If there is one constant lodestar that lights the judicial horizon in this country, it is this: that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing, and prior intimation of such a move. This principle is too well entrenched in the legal ethos of this country to be ignored, as the state did, in this case.

¶16The High Court, in the opinion of this court, fell into error in holding that in matters of award of public contracts, the scope of inquiry in judicial review is limited. Granted, such jurisdiction is extremely circumscribed; no doubt the court had refused to grant relief to Daffodils against its plea of wrongful rejection of its tender. However, what the impugned judgment clearly overlooks is that the action of the state, not to procure indefinitely, on an assumption of complicity by Daffodils, was in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice."

¶4<he relevant para$raph of the   Cham$ i's .ase (s*0ra!  is as under:+ "19. The compliance of natural justice in domestic/disciplinary inquiry is necessary has long been established. This Court has held that even there are no specific statutory rule requiring observance of natural justice, the compliance of natural justice is necessary. Certain ingredients have been held to be constituting integral part of holding of an inquiry. The Apex Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen reported in (1964) 3 SCR 616 has laid down following: "... An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless, (i) the employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him, (ii) the witnesses are examined – ordinarily in the presence of the employee – in respect of the charges, (iii) the employee is given a fair opportunity to cross examine witnesses, (iv) he is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter, and (v) the inquiry officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report."

¶3.earned counsel for the respondents has not  een a le to show that any show cause notice was served upon the petitioner  efore passin$ the i/pu$ned order, hence, it can  e safely presu/ed that i/pu$ned order has een   passed   y   violatin$   the  principles   of   natural  justice,   hence,   the i/pu$ned order dated "%.&'.(&(" )Anne*ure P+"(, is set+aside.

¶10The respondents in case, want to pursue the said issue so as to pass a fresh order, they should follow appropriate procedure as envisaged under law by giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶11Accordingly, present petition is allowed in above terms.

¶12Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. September 02, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) kanchan   JUDGE