Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash Godara vs State Of Haryana And Others on 17 January, 2023
CM No. 7326-C of 2022 in/and
RSA No. 2142 of 2022 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(104) CM No. 7326-C of 2022 in/and
RSA No. 2142 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 17.01.2023
Om Parkash Godara
...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
CM-7326-C-2022
Present application has been filed for seeking condonation of
delay of 7 days in filing the appeal.
Notice of the application to the counsel opposite.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, learned Assistant Advocate General,
Haryana, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf of the
respondent-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, which
is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed and delay of 7 days in
filing the appeal is condoned.
CM-7328-C-2022
Application is allowed, as prayed for.
1 of 5
CM No. 7326-C of 2022 in/and
RSA No. 2142 of 2022 (O&M)
RSA-2142-2022
In the present regular second appeal, the challenge is to the
decree passed by the lower appellate court dated 24.05.2022 by which the
decree of the trial court in civil suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff for
declaration and mandatory injunction qua the punishment of recovery
imposed vide order dated 07.09.2012, has been upheld.
In the present case, the department after holding a departmental
enquiry against the appellant-plaintiff, passed an order of punishment of
recovery of loss amounting to ₹92,151/- vide order dated 07.09.2012.
Against the said order of punishment, the appellant-plaintiff preferred an
appeal before the higher authorities, which was dismissed on 11.06.2015
and both the orders were challenged by the appellant-plaintiff by filing the
civil suit so as to declare them null and void and to restrain the respondents
from recovering the amount in question from the appellant-plaintiff. The
suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff was decreed on 15.03.2019, which
judgment of the trial court was challenged by the respondent-State in
appeal, which has been allowed by the lower appellate court on 24.05.2022.
In the present regular second appeal, the challenge is to the judgment of the
lower appellate court dated 24.05.2022.
Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff argues that the
punishment of recovery of alleged loss, imposed by defendant No. 2 vide
order dated 07.09.2012 as well as the rejection of the appeal filed against
the said order of punishment by defendant No. 3 vide order dated
11.06.2015 are bad in law and the judgment of the trial court dated
15.03.2019 allowing the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff is perfectly
2 of 5
CM No. 7326-C of 2022 in/and
RSA No. 2142 of 2022 (O&M)
valid and legal. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff further argues
that there was no enquiry, which was held before imposing the punishment
upon the appellant-plaintiff and the punishment was imposed merely by
issuance of a show cause notice and thereafter, passing an order of
punishment, which procedure is contrary to the settled principle of law.
The said argument has been dealt with by the lower appellate
court. The findings have been recorded by the lower appellate court that as
per the rules governing the service for imposition of a minor punishment,
the same can be done after issuance of a show cause notice and thereafter
passing an appropriate order keeping in view the reply furnished by the
employee concerned. In the present case, learned counsel for the appellant-
plaintiff conceded that the show cause notice was issued to the appellant-
plaintiff and thereafter, the order of recovery was passed, which punishment
is concededly a minor punishment. Keeping in view the said fact, once a
minor punishment has been imposed, the plea of the appellant-plaintiff that
no procedure envisaged under the rules for imposing the minor punishment
was followed, cannot be accepted.
Further, as it has already come on record by way of evidence
that departmental enquiry was conducted by the department against the
appellant-plaintiff and proper opportunity was given to the appellant-
plaintiff before passing the order in the departmental proceedings. Learned
counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has not been able to rebut the said fact or
point out any perversity in the said finding of the court. Hence, the said
argument that enquiry proceedings were not conducted against the
appellant-plaintiff before imposing the punishment is contrary to the facts
3 of 5
CM No. 7326-C of 2022 in/and
RSA No. 2142 of 2022 (O&M)
on record. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff conceded at the time
of hearing that though there was an enquiry proceeding conducted but the
same was not conducted in accordance with law and the enquiry report
submitted by the Enquiry Officer was not correct.
The second argument, which is being raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant-plaintiff that there was no evidence on record with
the Enquiry Officer to hold the appellant-plaintiff guilty. First of all, the
enquiry report was not under challenge at any given point of time so as to
conclude that whether the said enquiry report is based upon the evidence or
not. Further, nothing has been brought to the notice of even this Court as to
what evidence on record was not considered by the Enquiry Officer to prove
the charge. Said argument raised by the learned counsel has not been
supported by the evidence on record so as to demand acceptance. In the
absence of any prejudice shown, no interference can be done by this Court
and that too in a regular second appeal so as to re-appreciate the evidence
against so as to arrive at a different conclusion. The scope of the Court in
interfering into the disciplinary proceedings is restricted. Nothing has been
brought to the notice of this Court that the findings of the lower appellate
court is contrary to the rules governing the service or any evidence on
record.
Keeping in view the said fact, as no perversity has been pointed
out by learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff with regard to the
judgment of the lower appellate court dated 24.05.2022, no interference is
called for by this Court.
Dismissed.
4 of 5
CM No. 7326-C of 2022 in/and
RSA No. 2142 of 2022 (O&M)
CM-7329-C-2022
As the main appeal has been dismissed, the present application
also stands dismissed.
January 17, 2023 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
