Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Singh vs Pepsu Road Transport Corporation ... on 25 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
107 CWP-20632-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision : 25.07.2022
Avtar Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala through Managing Director and
others
.. Respondents
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present:- Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for the petitioner.
***
Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)
CM-6494-CWP of 2022
This application is for replacing Annexures P-1 & P-6.
Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is
allowed and Annexures P-1 & P-6 are replaced and taken on record, subject to
all just exceptions.
Main case
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 03.02.2011
(Annexure P-2) whereby he had been dismissed from service and the order
dated 16.12.2019 (Annexure P-6) whereby the order of termination dated
03.02.2011 (Annexure P-2) has been affirmed and his representation has been
rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had
earlier been dismissed from service on 03.02.2011 (Annexure P-2) as he was
involved in a criminal case. The order of dismissal was challenged in appeal
but the same was also dismissed vide letter dated 20.08.2015 (Annexure P-4).
1 of 3
CWP-20632-2020 (O&M) -2-
-----------
The petitioner was convicted in the criminal case but upon appeal, he had been
acquitted of all the charges by the order and judgment dated 04.10.2013
(Annexure P-3). This order of acquittal had attained finality. The petitioner
challenged the order of his dismissal and the order dismissing his appeal by
preferring CWP No.23651 of 2016 which was disposed of by order dated
09.09.2019 (Annexure P-5) setting aside the order of his dismissal and the
respondents were directed to pass a fresh order. The disciplinary authority by
order dated 16.12.2019 (Annexure P-6) considered the representation of the
petitioner in terms of the directions of this Court and dismissed the same. The
petitioner preferred first statutory appeal against the order dated 16.12.2019 to
the appellate authority which was dismissed on 06.08.2020 (Annexure P-8) by
holding that there is no provision to file second appeal.
Issue notice to the respondents.
At the asking of the Court, Mr. Rakesh Roy, Advocate for Mr.
Abhilaksh Gaind, Advocate (Standing counsel) accepts notice on behalf of the
respondents.
Heard.
It is manifest that the appeal of the petitioner against the order
dated 16.12.2019 (Annexure P-6) had been dismissed without appreciating the
merits and on the ground which would not be sustainable. The disciplinary
authority had passed the order dismissing the petitioner from service on
03.02.2011 (Annexure P-2) and the appeal thereagainst had been dismissed on
20.08.2015 (Annexure P-4). These orders have been challenged by the
petitioner and this Court vide order dated 09.09.2019 (Annexure P-5) had set
aside the same and directed the respondents to consider the representation of
2 of 3
CWP-20632-2020 (O&M) -3-
-----------
the petitioner afresh. Therefore, it could not be said that the appeal which had
been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 16.12.2019 (Annexure
P-6) would be the second appeal and barred. This appeal was against the order
dated 16.12.2019(Annexure P-6) which had been passed after the directions of
this Court and the petitioner is entitled to the fair consideration of his appeal on
merits.
Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order dated
06.08.2020 (Annexure P-8) is set aside. The appellate authority is directed to
consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits and pass a speaking
order in accordance with law after affording him an opportunity of hearing
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
July 25, 2022
sonia gugnani
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
