Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ved Parkesh Gupta vs Hr.St on 23 January, 2023
RSA-1508-2000 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(202) RSA-1508-2000 (O&M)
Date of Decision : January 23, 2023
Ved Parkash Gupta .. Appellant
Versus
Haryana State and another .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
CM-2320-C-2000
This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay of 273 days in filing the appeal.
Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the application, which
is duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and delay of
273 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
RSA-1508-2000
In the present Regular Second Appeal, the order of the Lower
Appellate Court dated 11.12.1998 is under challenge by which the case was
remanded back for the fresh inquiry.
Certain facts needs to be enumerated for consideration of this
Regular Second Appeal. The charge sheet was issued to the appellant on
various allegations and after the enquiry, an order of punishment was passed
on 27.01.1986, by which the appellant who was working as a Clerk in the
1 of 4
office of Deputy Commissioner was dismissed from service. Against the
said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner and the
Commissioner vide order dated 04.12.1987 modified the order dated
27.01.1986 and the punishment of dismissal was modified with that of
reduction of pay to the initial stage and that the appellant will not be entitled
for any salary over and above his suspension allowance already paid and
further, for the period he remained out of service in pursuance to the order
dated 27.01.1986, he will not be entitled for any salary. The said order dated
04.12.1987 was further challenged by the appellant by filing a revision
petition before the Financial Commissioner, which revision petition was
decided on 20.08.1993 and the order passed by the Commissioner dated
04.12.1987 was upheld.
The said orders of punishment were challenged by the appellant
by filing a civil suit, which civil suit was decreed in favour of the appellant-
plaintiff holding that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated
27.01.1986 dismissing the appellant from service as well as the order passed
by the Commissioner i.e. Appellate Authority dated 04.12.1987 modifying
the punishment of dismissal with that of reduction of pay and the order
passed by the Revisional Authority dated 20.08.1993 are null and void and
the appellant is entitled for the full salary for the period in question for
which he remained out of service along with all the consequential benefits.
Against the said order of the trial Court dated 17.09.1997, State
preferred an appeal and the appeal was partly accepted and the order of the
trial Court declaring the order of punishment passed by the punishing
authority dated 27.01.1986, order passed by the Commissioner i.e.
Appellate Authority dated 04.12.1987 and the order passed by the
2 of 4
Revisional Authority dated 20.08.1993 were held to be bad but the matter
was remanded back to the punishing authority to pass a fresh order on the
disciplinary proceedings from the stage where three enquiry reports were
furnished to the appellant.
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging
the said order of the Lower Appellate Court by which the judgment and
decree of the trial Court has been modified so as to allow the Department to
pass fresh order on the disciplinary proceedings.
Learned counsel for the appellant argues that after the filing of
the present Regular Second Appeal in the year 2000, the appellant worked
with the respondent-Department and retired in the year 2017. Learned
counsel for the appellant submits that as the appellant has already retired
from service, no useful purpose will be served in remanding the case back to
the punishing authority to pass a fresh order on the punishment, hence, once
the order of Commissioner dated 04.12.1987 has already modified the order
of punishment of dismissal from service inflicted on 27.01.1986 by reducing
the punishment to that of reduction of the pay of the appellant-plaintiff to
the initial stage, the revisional authority i.e. Financial Commissioner may
kindly be directed to decide the revision afresh as to whether, keeping in
view the Rule 4.12 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, while reducing the
pay to the initial stage, the Commissioner was required to furnish the time
period also for the said punishment or not and the prayer of the appellant-
plaintiff in the suit may only be restricted to challenge the order of the
revisional authority dated 20.08.1993 only.
Learned State counsel submits that as the appellant-plaintiff,
keeping in view the statement made before this Court, has only restricted
3 of 4
the claim qua the challenge to the order passed by the revisional authority
dated 20.08.1993, State has no objection in case the remand ordered by the
Court below is modified qua the challenge to the order dated 20.08.1993 so
as to direct the revisional authority to pass a fresh order on the review
petition filed by the appellant-plaintiff for the grant of benefit, if any
admissible under Rule 4.12 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules.
Keeping in view the facts mentioned hereinbefore, as the
parties are agreeable that after the decision of the lower Appellate Court, the
appellant was reinstated in service and had worked with respondents for a
period of 17 years before retirement and no useful purpose will be achieved
in re-opening of the disciplinary proceedings again, keeping in view the
facts and circumstances stated hereinbefore, the order passed by the lower
Appellate Court is modified to the extent that only the order dated
20.08.1993 be treated to have been set aside as challenge to the recovery
order has already been withdrawn by the appellant-plaintiff with liberty to
pass a fresh order on the revision filed by the appellant qua the claim being
raised under Rule 4.12 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules as applicable to
Haryana.
The present Regular Second Appeal is disposed of in above
agreed terms by the parties.
CM-2321-C-2000 and CM-9188-C-2001
As the main appeal has been disposed of, present applications
also stand disposed of.
January 23, 2023 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
