Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana And Others vs Zile Singh on 19 December, 2022
RSA-2434-2022 (O&M) -1-
124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2434-2022 (O&M)
Decided on : 19.12.2022
State of Haryana and others ...... Appellants
Versus
Zile Singh ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present : Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana.
****
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral)
CM-8348-C-2022
Application is allowed as prayed for and the delay of 125 days
in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
Main case
The defendants are in Regular Second Appeal impugning the
concurrent findings recorded against the defendants vide judgments and
decree dated 15.05.2018 passed by the trial court and dated 22.01.2020
passed by the Lower Appellate Court.
Parties to the lis, hereinafter, shall be referred to by their
original positions in the suit.
The pleaded case of the plaintiff may be noticed as thus;
plaintiff joined Haryana Roadways as a driver on 08.04.1996. A charge-
sheet bearing No.2946/PMA dated 06.11.1998 was served upon the plaintiff
on the charges that on 19.09.1998 plaintiff while on duty, was driving one
1 of 5
RSA-2434-2022 (O&M) -2-
bus No.HR-01PA-1078. On account of rash and negligent driving, his bus
hit a man, who died on the spot. Consequently, FIR No.109 dated
19.09.1998 under Sections 279/304-A IPC was registered against the
plaintiff. The plaintiff submitted his reply to the chargesheet, however,
without considering the same, the defendants initiated an inquiry against
him and issued a show cause notice to him. Still further, without
considering his reply to the show cause notice, defendant No.3 vide order
dated 17.08.1999 passed the impugned order for stoppage of two annual
increments with cumulative effect against the plaintiff. The allegations
levelled in the aforesaid FIR, that the accident in question had occurred on
account of rash and negligent driving of the plaintiff, proved to be
unsubstantiated during investigation as a result of which said FIR was
ordered to be cancelled vide memo dated 06.05.1999. Further more, the
cancellation report filed by the investigating agency was accepted by the
Court concerned. The plaintiff averred that the departmental inquiry
conducted against him was not in consonance with the principles of natural
justice as not only charges were not proved against the plaintiff but also no
eyewitness deposed against him during the inquiry. Further, during the
inquiry the plaintiff was not granted any opportunity to lead any evidence in
support of his case. Though the order passed by defendant No.3 dated
17.08.1999 was challenged in an appeal preferred by the plaintiff, however,
the plaintiff learnt about his appeal having been rejected vide order dated
06.08.2001 by Addl. Upper Transport Controller, Ambala only three months
prior to the institution of the suit in question. Thereafter, the plaintiff
served a legal notice dated 18.02.2016 upon the defendants, however, the
2 of 5
RSA-2434-2022 (O&M) -3-
defendants did not reply to the same. Hence, the plaintiff was left with no
other alternate remedy but to file the present suit.
In the written statement, defendants admitted that the FIR
No.109 dated 19.09.1998 registered against the plaintiff after the accident in
question, had not only been cancelled by the police but even the
cancellation report filed was accepted by the Court concerned. However, it
was averred that in the regular departmental inquiry initiated against the
plaintiff he was found guilty as he failed to produce any cogent evidence in
his favour. Thus, the penalty of stoppage of two annual increments with
cumulative effect was passed which in turn was upheld by the Appellate
Authority.
On the basis of material on record and evidence led, both the
Courts below decreed the suit of plaintiff and declared the order dated
17.08.1999 passed by defendant No.3 and order dated 06.08.2001 passed by
defendant No.2 as null and void and set it aside. The plaintiff was further
held entitled to the arrears of salary, however, only for a period of 38
months, prior to the date of filing of the suit, along with interest @ 6% per
annum.
Learned counsel for the defendants-State has vehemently
argued that the Courts below failed to appreciate that the suit of the plaintiff
was hopelessly time barred as the order under challenge was passed on
17.08.1999 and further the appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the Addl.
Upper Transport Controller, Ambala was dismissed on 06.08.2001, whereas
on the other hand, the suit in question had been filed much beyond the
period of limitation, in the year 2016 after almost 15 years. Learned counsel
3 of 5
RSA-2434-2022 (O&M) -4-
has submitted that therefore the suit filed by the plaintiff was liable to be
dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel has further argued that
since orders dated 17.08.1999 and 06.08.2001 had been passed in
accordance with law and principles of natural justice after serving a show
cause notice upon the plaintiff and affording him an opportunity of personal
hearing, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court could not be invoked.
Heard learned counsel and perused the relevant material
available on record.
Though learned counsel for the State vehemently argued that
the suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred, however, this Court does not
find any merit in the same for the reasons to follow:
Firstly, there is an admission made by DW-1
Tawinder Singh, Clerk from the office of defendant No.3,
to the effect that admittedly there was no record qua the
order dated 06.08.2001 passed by the Appellate
Authority having been ever communicated to the
plaintiff. Since it is the specific plea of the plaintiff that
he learnt about the impugned orders only three months
prior to the filing of the suit in question, therefore, in the
circumstances, the suit of the plaintiff cannot be said to
be beyond limitation.
Secondly, punishment of stoppage of two annual
increments vide order dated 17.08.1999 is a recurring
cause of action to the plaintiff as he had suffered
4 of 5
RSA-2434-2022 (O&M) -5-
continuous loss on account of the above-mentioned
stoppage.
Still further, though it was argued by learned counsel that the
principles of natural justice had been followed while passing the orders
dated 17.08.1999 and 06.08.2001, however, this Court finds no force in his
submissions. Admittedly, the only witness examined during the
departmental inquiry was one Ujjagar Singh, who as per Ex.D-5 was
admittedly neither a witness to the accident in question nor was he present
anywhere near the place of accident. In the circumstances, when the only
evidence on the basis of which the impugned order dated 17.08.1999 had
been passed was the testimony of hearsay witness i.e. Ujjagar Singh, it ran
contrary to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the State that
principles of natural justice had been followed during the departmental
inquiry.
On being pointedly asked, learned counsel for the defendants
failed to bring to the notice of this Court anything on record to show that the
conclusions arrived at by the Courts below were either contrary to record or
suffered from any material illegality.
In the circumstances, this Court does not find any error in the
judgments and decree passed by the Courts below, which would warrant any
interference. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
19.12.2022 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
sonia JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
