Hardial Singh vs Punjab Mandi Board and Another

K. kannan, J.—The revision petition is at the instance of a decree holder. Through the suit, a decree granted is that the decision by a State functionary imposing punishment had been rendered without issuing show cause notice against the enquiry officer''s report and imposing a punishment without following the rules of natural justice. The Court has passed the order setting aside the impugned punishment and decreed the suit with the following directions:

In view of my findings under the aforesaid issues, suit of the plaintiff succeeds and the same is hereby decreed with no order as to cost with the direction of the Government to give a fresh personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter to pass a detailed order dealing with all his objections, after considering his reply to show cause notice, enquiry report and record within a period of 2 months from the date of decree. Decree be prepared accordingly.

Admittedly, a show cause notice had been given to the plaintiff to give his explanation for the enquiry officer''s report. It is also an admitted fact that such an objection had been given. He was informed for a personal hearing before the decision was taken. The decision taken was to reiterate a punishment which has already been given. In the manner of passing an order the authority has taken more than two months which was the date which was specified in the decree.

When the original decree was put in execution, the defence was that a fresh punishment order had been imposed after an enquiry contemplated in the decretal directions and therefore the execution could not be levied on the first directions contained in the decree. The objection was upheld and the execution petition was dismissed. On revision to this Court, counsel''s contention is; i) that the authority has passed the order of punishment beyond the period of two months and therefore it is not valid. ii) the order passed subsequently will take effect only from the day when the order was passed and therefore the increment which had already accrued shall avail to him. Counsel relies on the decision of this Court in Randhir Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab 2000 (2) SCT 576 where the Court held once the punishment order is held to be improper and defective and the Court orders fresh enquiry, the punishment order becomes ineffective and non-existent and cannot operate any more during fresh enquiry.

The directions given to the authority to take a decision within two months must only be taken as directory and if the order came to be passed following all the necessary ingredients of natural justice such issuance of notice to show cause against the enquiry officer''s report and a personal hearing to the party then there is substantial compliance of the decretal directions and therefore the order cannot be said to be bad. The reliance on the judgment in Randhir Singh''s case (supra) is also of no avail, for, when a fresh order was passed it was not reviving the first order; it was a fresh consideration on the objection taken to the report and after granting personal hearing to the plaintiff. The second order stands on its own merits and if the plaintiff was trying to execute the decree that there had been a denial of increment, then such a denial had come through subsequent order. The first decree ought not to be understood as securing to him any benefit more than his right of showing cause against acceptance of the report and a benefit of personal hearing. The decree itself does not grant any monetary benefits. The decree merely provides for a fresh opportunity to join issues on the validity of enquiry officer''s report. If therefore any order was passed after following the enquiry report, there is no benefit which the plaintiff could secure under the first decretal direction, for, it has worked itself out through such opportunity given to the plaintiff and a fresh decision taken by the authority. The order impugned is perfectly tenable and there is no scope for intervention. The revision petition is dismissed.