Dilshad Ali v. State Of Punjab & ORS.






   
 








 







 !
 

""  
#$%
&

% '(
 
 !$

)"  
    
 
 

    
   $  $
#$
&( *
+*
$
&,-
&!$*
+*
$
!
""   $
&%$+
#$-*
 
+
. $ *
% '( /
/
/
/
   0!
"" *
  ,*
!  1
!
$$



"
(,
$ & 1 
2%1*
3!$(,
"













45 


 
(,
" $
""  
!$ 
3
-
%"!  1
!
$$

6



7%$
 
"
(,
&$$,

.+$ - 

% '(*
"$- 

81!$
9% *
% '(
$-+ 1
!
""  
$-
$+

!
1$% 

""  
!+ 1
(
 +
(,
!
0$
4%$
+
'%1- 
$$


:

:
$
!
 
"% !( 
%;
:6
 
: 

< 
 
4
<4
 
  

% $1
$1$%
-"$ - 
$

"$

7
- !
3!
 














)
;
 



% 

%$!$
% $1
$1$%
-"$ - 
$
+
,
$
!
 
"% !( 
% $
&
:6
<4
 
  

% $1
$1$%
-"$ - 
$

"$

7
- !
3!

 

) ;
 



% 

%$!$
% $1
$1$%
-"$ - 
$
+
,
$
!
 
"% !( 
% $
&
: 
<4
 
!
!

!
 

""
($
!
$ 
 
& 
2%1*
%! *
3!!
3
-
+
$$

:

:
$  1
!-

"$( $

"$

 
,$

$
!$ 1
$ 
% 
$
!
$+
"$*
!
4%$


!
 $
+3
!
!
 ,
 1 ,
$ 

!
$$















6



7%$
 

!
!
-

($

$ 
7"$ ,
  1
!
$ 
$
3!!
"  $,
%!$,
=
!


$-+ 1
!
" $
$-
$+


>
 ?%$,
3
! 

!
 3 1
$%
" 
0!
3!!$

!
1+

 
$%- 
 
$
!
 
$
3!!
!
""  
!
%$
 + *
!
""$"$
"% !- 
3% 
(
-
$-
$+
$
 ,
!$
$
"% !-  
0!
!
$$

6

 


$ 
!
 ,
- 
3
"" 
(,
!
"  $,
%!$,

!
1$% 
$

!
"" ;$"$ 


 
(,
!
""  
1 
!
$$

6

0
7 

(+*
-"%1 $$















6


$-+
$-
$+

+
$
( 1
 "= :

0!

!

7"


"  $,
%!$,*
3! 
-" 1
-'$
"  ,*


 
!

 ?%$,
3
 %
 

%
 
 ?%$,*

 -" 
(,
)% 


!
% '(
4+
&$+
% !- 
 
"" 
)% *
 *
(%
 
3!!

!
% - 
 "

$ ( 
""$% ,
%" 
3!
!

!
!
$$
!% 
$ 
!
- 
3
"" 

!
$ + 
 $ 

-  

" $@
"" ;$"$ 


0!
$ + 
 $ 
$
!
?% %-

"% !-  
!
1$% 
$
(,
""  

!
"" ;$"$ 















 
1 
!
-"%1 
$$

6


&- $
+3
3
=
(,

+
A !

!,
$!
81!
4%$


  

               5$

>
6









3!!
$

% $

"7. It is now well settled that even if the terminology used in Rule 19 did not expressly provide for grant of reasonable opportunity of being heard prior to passing of the penalty order, the principle of natural justice - audi alterem partem, has to be read into the said provision to prevent it from being sacrificed at the alter of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

8. The cut short of the above said discussion is that since the concept of enquiry is involved in Rule 19, it is obvious that the petitioner before being imposed penalty was required to be afforded opportunity of being heard on the question of quantum of penalty. 8.1 Cases may arise where conviction may be for less grave or more grave offence, but in both such cases, the orders of penalty under Rule 19 cannot be the same. In conviction for graver offence involving moral turpitude, any of the major penalties under Rule 11 of the CCS Rules would suffice. However for less grave offences which are outcome of heated discussion or where the element of mense rea is not palpable, lesser penalty may suffice. Thus, the disciplinary authority has to take into account these attending facts and circumstances while deciding the question of quantum of penalty after hearing delinquent employee.

9. For example, a government servant is sentenced to RI of 3 year/7 years and convicted for offence punishable under Sections 324/325 which are not one of the grave offences and the case is attended with extenuating circumstances of single blow or the assault being outcome of heated discussion or allegation alleged with the aid of Section 149/34 of the IPC or the rival parties being related to each other and having settled their scores during pendency of the criminal prosecution etc., the disciplinary authority has to apply its mind to all these and other extenuating circumstances so as to arrive at the appropriate penalty which can be inflicted upon the government servant under Rule 19 so as to remain within the bounds of proportionality. 9.1 The punishment under Rule 19 need not be always removal or dismissal but can be any of the lesser major penalties.

10. In view of the above discussion, it is vivid that the concept of enquiry is inherently contained in Rule 19. An enquiry inheres the concept of affording of reasonable opportunity. Thus, the petitioner ought to have been afforded reasonable opportunity of responding to the question of quantum of penalty before the disciplinary authority passed the penalty."

0!
$
+3

( $
(,
- $
+3

!
"7
4%$
!

  
<)

&4
) 
$
!
!$ (

+$,
$$
"

 ,
(,
'%
$
?% '% *
(%
 
- $+
%!$,
 


 "

  #$!  

"

! 

:
 

&44
:6
 
%&  $'

 $'

&   ( 
&44
 
&4
6 6

$ 
% 
$
!
""  
!
$ 
%"
+$%
'%1- 
$ $
(,
"7
4%$

3

!
81!
4%$

!,
$!

2( "%$
 
!
4%$

& !     )( 6:
&44
 B
 *'        

!! "+
 !*
 
&44
6 B

  

                   5$

>
6







B
)
!  ,'

)*-!$  *
6 
&
 B
&       +  (   
&

B

-#     +
 
!$
5$

>








 
    +.*   ( :
&
:


!
 $$,*
$ 
&
% 
!
 
$ 
%" +$%
'%1- 

"7
4%$



 !  / 
  ( +- *'*
 
&44

B
)  ,   

 . (   
&44

B
+ 0 

  & *      
! #   ( 
&44
6B
,  ,  

 . "! (       -

(  
&44

 
*'   

!!"+
 !(

 
&44
6

 0!
4%$*
!$$*
3!%
 $ 1
 
!
-$

!
 1 *

!
'%$

5$
4%$

-

!

-= 1
"$
 

!

 *
-

""$"$



!
$$

$-+
$-
$+

6

 ,

!
1$% 
!
!
-" ;"  $,
%!$,
!

"

"= 1
$$ 0!
""
*
$ 1 ,*
 3

!
7 
 
( 3 

0!
-"%1 
$$

6



7%$
 






& 
""  
!
 $,
 1

%"$

% *
!
?%

" 1
 ,
$$

!
"

!
$  - 
$
!$3


$ 

0!
-" ;"  $,
%!$,


($,

$  $
!
-$

!
1!

!
$
$
$ 1
$ ( 
""$% ,

!
""  
!$$
"

"= 1
$$ +
0!
4%$
$$ 
$-
" 1
 ,
$$

$1$
!
 ?% 
( 
3!!
-,
 3
%

!
$$
 
!
 - 
$
!$3

!
-
!
" 
%"
!
$$
!

"
(,
!
-" 
%!$,
3! 
7% 1
!
$$  0!
4%$
! 


!
 
3
!+

 $
 
!
-$

!
 1 
 
!+
 ,
 
3!
!
"

!
 -= 1
"$*
!
-" ;"  $,
%!$,

$

=

3 +3

!
1+

 
$%- 
3! 
" 1

"= 1
$$*
(%

$ 
3!
3

0!
-" ;"  $,
%!$,*
3! 
"" , 1

- $!

" 1

"= 1
$$*
!

(
  % 
(,
!


!
""  
!+ 1
""$!
!
4%$
 
!
4%$
!+ 1
"
!
"$ 
$$

0!$


$$











 
     

  -!
&!$-
5!!$
"= 1;$ C;>
5!!$
$"$( 
C;>