State Of Pb. & Anr vs Kashmir Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 21252 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

State Of Pb. & Anr vs Kashmir Singh on 6 December, 2023

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155614




RSA No.1112 of 1995 (O&M)                      -1-          2023:PHHC:155614

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                                RSA No.1112 of 1995 (O&M)
                                                 Date of Order: 06.12.2023

The State of Punjab and another
                                                                     .Appellants
                                    Versus

Sh. Kashmir Singh                                                ..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present: Mr. Vikas Arora, AAG, Punjab

Ms. Navroop Jawanda, Advocate for the respondent.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

1. The State of Punjab (defendant) assails the correctness of the

judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court on 22.11.1994.

2. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit (respondent herein)

on 20.05.1992, which in appeal was reversed by the First Appellate Court.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for grant of decree of declaration to the

effect that the order dated 11.06.1990, passed by the General Manager,

Punjab Raodways, while terminating the plaintiff's service and forfeiture of

pay over and above the amount of subsistence allowance for the period of

suspension is illegal, wrong, biased and arbitrary.

4. The trial court dismissed the suit, however the First Appellate

Court found that the plaintiff, who was working as a driver had handed over

the bus to drive to the then conductor Sh. Gurmit Singh. When Sh. Gurmit

Singh was driving the vehicle, it met with an accident. The disciplinary

proceedings were initiated against the respondent and the Inquiry Officer

reported that the charges against the respondent could not be proved.

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155614

RSA No.1112 of 1995 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:155614

5. The disciplinary authority without recording any reason ordered

de-novo inquiry. The First Appellate Court held that the aforesaid decision

of the disciplinary authority was not in accordance with the rules as de-novo

inquiry cannot be ordered without recording the appropriate reasons for the

same. In the criminal trial, the respondent was acquitted.

6. It has been brought to the notice of the court that the regular

second appeal was dismissed, however, the Supreme Court vide judgment

dated 02.09.1996, requested the high court to re-admit the appeal and

dispose it of on merits.

7. The learned counsel representing the appellants (State of

Punjab) admits that in view of the judgment passed in Karnail Singh

(Kanungo Agrarian) vs. The State of Punjab, 1992(1) RSJ 231, the de-

novo inquiry on the same charges is not permissible. The rules do not

provide for de-novo inqiury into the charges without assigning sufficient

reasons for doing the same. He submits that he is not in a position to point

out any error in the judgment of the First Appellate Court.

8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground

to interfere is made out.

9. Dismissed.

10. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

December 06, 2023                                     (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt                                                         JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned               :YES/NO
Whether reportable                      :YES/NO


                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155614

                                       2 of 2