Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Jarnail Singh on 13 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:051565
CM-3768-C-2022 in/and RSA-3324-2006 2023:PHHC:051565 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(292) CM-3768-C-2022 in/and
RSA-3324-2006
Date of Decision : April 13, 2023
State of Punjab .. Appellant
Versus
Jarnail Singh .. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Gurvinder Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab,
for the non-applicant/appellant-State.
Mr. Narinder Singh Panwar, Advocate, for the applicant-
respondent.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
CM-3768-C-2022
Present application has been filed for fixing the appeal at an
early actual date.
Notice of the application to the counsel opposite.
Mr. Gurvinder Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab,
accepts notice on behalf of non-applicant/appellant-State and raises no
objection for the grant of prayer as raised in the present application.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the
same is allowed and the main appeal is taken up for hearing today itself.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:051565
CM-3768-C-2022 in/and RSA-3324-2006 2023:PHHC:051565 2
RSA-3324-2006
In the present Regular Second Appeal, the judgment and decree
of the lower Appellate Court dated 01.06.2006 is under challenge by which,
the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 17.01.2006 by which, the
suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed, has been set aside and
the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff has been decreed with a direction
that fresh enquiry proceedings be conducted against the respondent-plaintiff
afresh after granting him due opportunity to defend.
Learned counsel for the appellant-State argues that the reasons
for accepting the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff have been given in
paragraph 7 of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court wherein, it has
been mentioned that the charge-sheet which led to imposition of punishment
was issued to the respondent-plaintiff by an authority, which was not a
punishing authority, hence, any proceedings conducted in respect of the said
charge-sheet becomes void and further ground taken by the lower Appellate
Court to allow the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff is that the
respondent-plaintiff has not been given an opportunity to engage the
counsel.
Learned counsel for the appellant-State further argues that
while recording the said findings, nothing has been mentioned as to which
authority was the punishing authority who was required to serve a charge-
sheet upon the respondent-plaintiff as per the rules governing the service
and under which rules governing the service, the assistance of a lawyer was
to be provided to the respondent-plaintiff.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the absence of
any such evidence/facts on record, the findings have been recorded in
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:051565
CM-3768-C-2022 in/and RSA-3324-2006 2023:PHHC:051565 3
paragraph 7 of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, which findings
cannot be sustained being perverse to the evidence/facts on record.
Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that
though it is a matter of fact that while recording the finding, the lower
Appellate Court has not mentioned the punishing authority which was
required to serve the charge-sheet upon the respondent-plaintiff, but it is a
matter of fact that the charge-sheet was not served by the punishing
authority. Hence, the order passed by the lower Appellate Court dated
01.06.2006 is liable to be upheld.
Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff further submits
that an another employee named as Jarnail Singh having Belt No.2372, has
been given a different punishment than the one imposed upon the
respondent-plaintiff, hence, on this account also, the punishment imposed
upon the respondent-plaintiff is liable to be reviewed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
Before a finding is recorded, the evidence/facts on the basis of
which a particular finding is being recorded has to be mentioned by the
Court to support the said finding.
In the present case, nothing has been mentioned as to why the
Jail Superintendent of the Jail, where the respondent-plaintiff was working
as Warden was not considered as the punishing authority. Further, no
provision of rule has been cited to prove that somebody else than the Jail
Superintendent who had served the charge-sheet upon the respondent-
plaintiff, was the punishing authority. In the absence of any fact/evidence
supporting the finding that the Jail Superintendent was not the punishing
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:051565
CM-3768-C-2022 in/and RSA-3324-2006 2023:PHHC:051565 4
authority, the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court in paragraph 7
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Further, for providing assistance of a lawyer during the
departmental enquiry, no rule allowing the said assistance has been
noticed/discussed. No rule has been cited according to which there is a
provision to engage a lawyer to conduct the enquiry proceedings on behalf
of delinquent employee. In the absence of any such rule being brought on
record or being mentioned in the judgment, the said findings are perverse
and have been rendered without there being evidence on record.
In view of the facts mentioned hereinbefore, two findings on
the basis of which the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed, are
perverse as those findings have been recorded without there being any
evidence or facts on record to support the same.
Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has not been able
to point out a single fact to support the finding that the jail Superintendent
was not the punishing authority.
Therefore, the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, hence, the judgment and decree of
the trial Court dated 01.06.2006 is accordingly set aside.
An argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the
respondent-plaintiff that a similarly situated employee namely Jarnail Singh
having Belt No.2372 was given different punishment than one imposed
upon respondent-plaintiff in somewhat similar circumstances and he relies
upon the order passed by the Jail Superintendent wherein, the punishment of
dismissal was modified by the Jail Superintendent, Head Quarter Jail
Ferozepur vide order dated 12.05.1999, which benefit has never been
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:051565
CM-3768-C-2022 in/and RSA-3324-2006 2023:PHHC:051565 5
extended to the respondent-plaintiff.
It may be noticed that the present is the Regular Second
Appeal, which has to be decided on the basis of the evidence which has
come on record. It is a conceded position that the order dated 12.05.1999
passed in the case of Jarnail Singh having Belt No.2372 is not on record.
Hence, no benefit of the same can be given by this Court but liberty can be
given to the respondent-plaintiff to approach the respondent by filing
appropriate representation bringing to their notice claim qua equal treatment
as given to Jarnail Singh having Belt No.2372.
Learned State counsel submits that in case any representation is
filed by the respondent-plaintiff, the same will be considered in accordance
with law and appropriate order will be passed within a period of three
months of the receipt of any such representation and in case it is found that
the claim of the respondent-plaintiff, who is similarly situated to Jarnail
Singh having Belt No.2372, appropriate relief will also be extended.
Keeping in view the above, the appeal filed by the State is
accepted and the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court is set
aside and that of trial Court is restored but with liberty to the respondent-
plaintiff to avail appropriate remedy of filing representation before the
authorities concerned in case he intends to claim the relief as being
extended to Jarnail Singh having Belt No.2372.
The present Regular Second Appeal is allowed in above terms.
April 13, 2023 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:051565
5 of 5
