Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Daljit Singh on 22 November, 2023
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148732
RSA No.344 of 1993 (O&M) -1- 2023:PHHC:148732
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.344 of 1993 (O&M)
Date of Order:22.11.2023
Punjab State and another
.Appellants
Versus
Daljit Singh ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Mr. Vikas Arora, AAG, Punjab
Ms. Jayanti Singla, Advocate, for
Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate,
for the respondent.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J
1. In this regular second appeal, the State of Punjab (defendant)
assails the correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the First
Appellate Court.
2. It may be noted here that this appeal has come up for hearing
after a period of 31 years. While admitting the appeal, no interim relief was
granted to the appellant. Consequently, the respondent (plaintiff) before the
trial court (now deceased) was reinstated in service on 16.09.1993, and on
attaining the age of superannuation he retired.
3. The only issue that requires consideration is with respect to the
entitlement of the respondent to the wages for the period between
14.08.1987 to 16.09.1993.
4. At the relevant time, the respondent was working as a
Conductor in the buses run by the State Government. It was found by the
checking staff that out of 33 passengers, 28 had not been issued tickets by
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148732
RSA No.344 of 1993 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:148732
the respondent, though he had collected fare from them. He was suspended
on 05.02.1986, and a charge sheet was issued to him. Ultimately, the
disciplinary authority nominated an Inquiry Officer to inquire into the
charges. As per the inquiry report dated 14.05.1987, the charges against the
respondent were reported to have been proved. The final show cause notice
was issued to the respondent which led to ultimate order of termination
from service on 14.08.1987.
5. The respondent filed the civil suit on 24.02.1988, challenging
the order dated 14.08.1987. The trial court on appreciation of evidence
dismissed the suit on the ground that no procedural error in the inquiry
report has been found.
6. The respondent filed the first appeal. The First Appellate Court
set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on the ground that
the disciplinary authority while passing the order of dismissal on
14.08.1987, has taken into account the previous record of the respondent
which is beyond the final show cause notice. Secondly, the respondent
admitted his fault under the compelling circumstances and therefore, the
disciplinary authority could not rely upon the same.
7. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the
parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book.
8. The learned counsel representing the State of Punjab submits
that the order of punishment passed on 14.08.1987, is based on the inquiry
report and not solely on the admission of the respondent. He further submits
that the service rules do not bar the consideration of the previous record of
the employee while passing the order.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148732
RSA No.344 of 1993 (O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC:148732
respondent has reiterated the grounds taken by the learned First Appellate
Court.
10. This court has considered the submissions of the learned
counsel representing the parties.
11. On a court question, the learned counsel representing the
respondent failed to draw the attention of the court to any procedural error in
the disciplinary inquiry or the proceedings held by the disciplinary authority.
Despite the request, the learned counsel representing the respondent also
failed to draw the attention of the court to any provision of the service rules
which debars the disciplinary authority from taking into account the
previous record of the delinquent employee.
12. The scope of interference by the civil court against the order of
the disciplinary authority is limited. In the absence of infringement of
procedure laid down for holding a departmental inquiry, it is not permissible
for the court to interfere. The civil court is not expected to examine the
order passed by the disciplinary authority as an appellate court. In this case,
it has come on the file that even the previous record of the respondent was
not clean. As many as six annual increments with cumulative effect were
stopped and he was previously censured on two different occasions.
13. The reasons assigned by the First Appellate Court for setting
aside the trial court judgment and decree are erroneous. On the careful
reading of the order passed by the disciplinary authority on 14.08.1987, it is
evident that the disciplinary authority took into account the report of the
inquiry officer, the previous record of the delinquent employee as well as
the admission made by the respondent admitting his misconduct.
Undoubtedly, the respondent prayed for mercy, however, that would not
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148732
RSA No.344 of 1993 (O&M) -4- 2023:PHHC:148732
itself be sufficient to absolve the respondent particularly when despite the
prayer made by the respondent not to hold inquiry, the disciplinary inquiry
was held and charges were proved, and also the respondent admitted his
fault.
14. As already noticed, the respondent was reinstated in service and
has continued to work till the date he attained the age of superannuation.
He was given all retrial benefits and was paid pension till he was alive. In
these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to entirely set aside the
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court. However, in the
interest of justice, the State of Punjab is absolved from liability to pay wages
for the period the respondent never worked. Hence, the State of Punjab shall
not be liable to pay the wages/salary from 14.08.1987 to 16.09.1993.
15. With these observations, the appeal is partly allowed.
16. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
November 22, 2023 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :YES/NO
Whether reportable :YES/NO
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:148732
4 of 4
