Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Piara Singh on 1 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044172
2024:PHHC:044172
RSA-2357-1994 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
218 RSA-2357-1994
Date of decision:-01.04.2024
PUNJAB STATE THR. COLLECTOR, GURDASPUR & ANR.
...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
PIARA SINGH ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.
Respondent proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 30.05.1995.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
1. State-defendants are in second appeal before this Court
challenging the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below.
2. Plaintiff-respondent, who was working as a Conductor with the
Punjab Roadways Depot, Pathankot, and was governed by the Punjab Civil
Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, (for short "the Rules") filed
a civil suit for declaring six different punishment orders as null and void on
various grounds. Upon notice, defendants filed the written statement,
wherein various preliminary objections including that of limitation were
taken. Suit was contested on merits and a stand was taken that the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044172
2024:PHHC:044172
RSA-2357-1994 -2-
punishment orders have been passed after complying with the procedure
contemplated under the Rules.
3. Issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties
and after they led evidence, Trial Court by judgment and decree dated
12.01.1991 partly accepted the suit, three punishment orders were set aside
and the defendants were directed to release the arrears of salary to the
plaintiff. Upon appeal preferred by the defendants, learned Additional
District Judge, Gurdaspur, by judgment dated 02.03.1994 found that
challenge to punishment orders dated 07.12.1972 and 07.04.1978 was barred
by limitation as the civil suit was instituted on 25.10.1989. However, insofar
as the third punishment order dated 29.02.1988 was concerned, the First
Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the same deserves to be set
aside to the extent salary due to the plaintiff during the suspension period
had been withheld. This judgment is under challenge in the instant appeal.
4. I have heard the State counsel and examined the record with his
able assistance.
5. The First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that dual
punishment had been imposed upon the plaintiff. On one hand, he was given
punishment of censure and on the other hand, salary for the suspension
period had been with-held. Following the judgment of this Court in
Narinder Nath and another Versus The State of Punjab 1991 (3) RSJ 630,
the First Appellate Court returned a finding that dual punitive action was not
contemplated under the Rules. Therefore, order dated 29.02.1988 was set
aside to the extent the salary for the suspension period, had been with-held.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044172
2024:PHHC:044172
RSA-2357-1994 -3-
This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment passed by
the First Appellate Court, which deserves to be upheld.
6. Finding no merit in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed with no
order as to costs.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
01.04.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
