Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswant Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 25 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058398
CM-1016-C-2023 in/and RSA-2245-2018 2023:PHHC:058398
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(106) CM-1016-C-2023 in/and
RSA-2245-2018
Date of Decision : April 25, 2023
Jaswant Singh .. Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate, for the applicant-appellant.
Mr. Rohit Bansal, Senior DAG, Punjab.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
CM-1016-C-2023
As prayed for, the application is allowed.
Synoposis/list of events are taken on record.
RSA-2245-2018
Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed challenging the
judgments of the Courts below by which, the suit filed by the appellant-
plaintiff for declaring the order dated 28.12.2007 by which the punishment
was imposed upon the appellant-plaintiff as well as the order passed in
appeal, as arbitrary and illegal, was dismissed by the trial Court vide
judgment and decree dated 12.05.2016, as well as against the judgment of
the lower Appellate Court dated 18.05.2017 by which, the appeal filed by
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058398
CM-1016-C-2023 in/and RSA-2245-2018 2023:PHHC:058398
the appellant-plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the trial Court,
was dismissed.
Certain facts needs to be mentioned for the correct appreciation
of the controversy in hand.
The appellant-plaintiff was working as a Driver with the
Transport Department of the Government of Punjab. On 14.10.1999, while
the appellant-plaintiff was performing the duties on Bus No. PB12B-9419,
an accident took place and in the said accident, one person died and an
another person was injured. In respect of the said accident, an FIR No.143
dated 14.10.1999 was registered against the appellant-plaintiff under
Section 279, 338 and 304-A of the IPC in which the appellant-plaintiff was
found guilty and was convicted. After being convicted, the appellant-
plaintiff was directed to serve the sentence for a period of one year and six
months, which sentence was reduced in the appeal by the lower Appellate
Court and in the criminal revision filed before this Court, the same was
further attained finality reduced to already undergone. After the conviction
of the appellant-plaintiff, action was taken against the appellant-plaintiff by
the Department keeping in view the conviction and the competent authority
terminated the services of the appellant-plaintiff vide order dated
09.03.2004 but on an appeal, the Appellate Authority on 15.06.2005, the
punishment of termination from service was reduced to reduction in the time
scale period for a period of three years.
Keeping in view the accident involving the appellant-plaintiff
wherein, a person had lost life and another was injured, the claim petition
was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking compensation.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058398
CM-1016-C-2023 in/and RSA-2245-2018 2023:PHHC:058398
The said claim petition was decided and the claimants were found entitled
for compensation of sum of Rs.5,97,145/-. The appellant, who was also
party to the claim petition, was also held liable for the payment of
compensation to the claimants.
The liability was discharged by the Department of Transport
and in order to recover the said amount from the appellant, disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against the appellant-plaintiff wherein, the
negligence was proved. Despite the fact that the negligence was proved,
rather than recovering the amount which was paid by the Transport
Department on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff to the claimants, a
punishment was imposed upon the appellant-plaintiff for stoppage of five
increments with cumulative effect. The said order was passed on
28.12.2007. An appeal was preferred by the appellant-plaintiff against the
said punishment order, which appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate
Authority on 31.10.2011.
The order of punishment dated 28.12.2007 and the order passed
by the Appellate Authority dated 31.10.2011 were challenged by the
appellant-plaintiff by filing a civil suit. In the civil suit, the ground was
taken that for the same offence, a punishment has already been imposed
upon the appellant after being convicted of reducing his pay scale to the
time scale for a period of three years vide order dated 15.06.2005, hence, no
second punishment can be imposed again for the same offence. Another
ground was taken that though in the charge sheet, the allegation was with
regard to the recovery of compensation paid by the Department of Transport
on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff but rather than directing the recovery of
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058398
CM-1016-C-2023 in/and RSA-2245-2018 2023:PHHC:058398
the said amount, another punishment was imposed upon him stopping his
five increments with cumulative effect, which amounts to double jeopardy.
Keeping in view the evidence which came on record, the same
was interpreted by the trial Court keeping in view the facts of the present
case and suit was dismissed by holding that once an order of punishment
has been passed after giving due opportunity, the Court has no power to
interfere. The allegation that the appellant-plaintiff was being punished
twice for the same offence, was not dealt with. Feeling aggrieved against
the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 12.05.2016, the appeal was
preferred which appeal also came to be dismissed by the lower Appellate
Court on the ground that once the appellant-plaintiff was negligent in
discharge of his duties, the loss suffered by the Transport Department can
be recovered from him. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, argues that
challenge to the order of punishment which has been impugned in the
present case is of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect is
being pressed and not of the recovery of the amount which has been paid by
the Department in respect of the compensation paid to the claimants.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has no
objection if the amount paid by the Department is deducted from his
pending arrears but the punishment of stoppage of five increment is the
second punishment on the same facts and same allegations, which is not
permissible, which fact has totally been ignored by the Court below while
passing the impugned judgment.
Learned counsel for the respondents-State has not been able to
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058398
CM-1016-C-2023 in/and RSA-2245-2018 2023:PHHC:058398
rebut that it has already come on record that vide order dated 15.06.2005, on
the basis of same accident, after being convicted of the allegations, the
appellant-plaintiff has been imposed a punishment of reduction to the time
scale for a period three years and once again, by the impugned order, his
five increments have been stopped for the same offence.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
It is a settled principle of law that no one can be punished twice
for the same offence. Even Article 22.2 of the Constitution of India bars the
same. In the present case, keeping in view the conviction of the appellant-
plaintiff, which conviction was in connection with the accident which
occurred and one person lost his life, the appellant-plaintiff was initially
dismissed from service on 09.03.2004 on being convicted by the Competent
Court of law but thereafter on an appeal, he was reinstated in service by
modifying the punishment to that of reduction to the time scale for a period
of three years. That being so, no departmental proceedings could have been
held for inflicting another punishment on the basis of the same accident.
It may be noticed that in the subsequent charge-sheet which
was issued to the appellant-plaintiff was for the recovery of the
compensation which was paid by the Department to the claimants but, rather
than directing the recovery of the said amount, the punishment of stoppage
of five increments was imposed upon him with cumulative effect which
shows that without application of mind, he was again punished for the same
offence.
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058398
CM-1016-C-2023 in/and RSA-2245-2018 2023:PHHC:058398
Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff submits that he has
no objection with regard to the recovery of the amount of compensation
which the Department had paid on behalf of the appellant from the dues,
which are yet to be released in favour of the appellant-plaintiff as the
appellant-plaintiff has already retired from service on 31.03.2021.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present
case, it is clear that the Courts below though, were required to ascertain the
fact as to how, for the same offence the appellant was being punished twice,
rejected the claim of the appellant-plaintiff on the ground that once there is
an enquiry held, the Court does not have power to interfere.
Though the said proposition is correct but whether, an
employee can be punished twice for the same offence, was required to be
seen by the Courts below, which they failed to appreciate. Hence, the suit
filed by the appellant-plaintiff challenging the order of punishment dated
28.12.2007 as well as the order passed in appeal dated 30.10.2011 are set
aside. The punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative
effect is also set aside. The appellant-plaintiff is entitled for the grant of
increment if they have already been withheld during his service career and
thereafter, calculate his pay accordingly upto the date of his retirement.
It may be noticed that learned counsel for the appellant has
already undertaken before this Court that the compensation which the
Department has paid on behalf of the appellant to the claimants in respect of
the accident in question, can be recovered from the dues in case the same
has not been released so far. The said recovery be done in accordance with
law keeping in view the policy of the State of Punjab.
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058398
CM-1016-C-2023 in/and RSA-2245-2018 2023:PHHC:058398
The present appeal is allowed in above terms.
April 25, 2023 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058398
7 of 7
