Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pb.State & Ors vs Kulwant Singh on 1 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043057
RSA-3779-1998 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:043057 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(209) RSA-3779-1998 (O&M)
Date of Decision : April 01st, 2024
Punjab State and others .. Appellants
Versus
Kulwant Singh .. Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
CM-6596-C-1998
As prayed for, the application is allowed.
Delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
RSA-3779-1998
1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and
decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 21.01.1998 by which, the suit
filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed and the judgment and decree
of the trial Court dated 27.05.1995 was set aside.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that in the suit, the
challenge is to the order dated 31.07.1989 by which, a major punishment
was imposed upon the respondent-plaintiff qua reduction of his salary to the
initial basic pay for a period of three years and further not to grant him any
further benefits during the period of suspension.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043057
3. The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed by the
trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 27.05.1995, which judgment was
challenged by the respondent-plaintiff in appeal. The lower Appellate Court
vide judgment and decree dated 21.01.1998 allowed the appeal and held
that the disciplinary proceedings held against the respondent-plaintiff were
not by following the proper process and even the order imposing
punishment which was passed against the respondent-plaintiff was cryptic
and non-speaking and the punishment imposed was also violative of Rule
4.12 as well as Rule 8.11 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules, 1970.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment
and decree of the lower Appellate Court is not correct.
5. On being asked to point out the perversity in the judgment,
learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to point out any
perversity to show that the findings recorded by the Courts below that the
procedure envisaged for holding the departmental enquiry, has been
followed.
6. Further, the findings were recorded by the trial Court that Rule
4.12 and 8.11 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,
1970 have been violated while passing the punishment order. Even on this
aspect, learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show that the
judgment of the lower Appellate Court is perverse.
7. Even otherwise, there was no interim order in the present
appeal and judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court has already
been executed and the respondent-plaintiff has retired from service since
long and getting pension.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043057
8. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any
interference by this Court as no perversity in the judgment of the lower
Appellate Court could be pointed out.
9. Dismissed.
April 01st, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
