Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs S.K. Gupta on 2 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043788
2024:PHHC:043788
RSA-1606-1993 (O & M) and
RSA-1607-1993 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
122-2 cases
1. RSA-1606-1993 (O & M)
Date of decision:02.04.2024
HARYANA STATE THR. SECRETARY, CHANDIGARH & ANR.
... APPELLANTS
V/S
S.K. GUPTA ... RESPONDENT
2. RSA-1607-1993
HARYANA STATE THR. SECRETARY, CHANDIGARH & ANR.
... APPELLANTS
V/S
S.K. GUPTA ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Aman Bahri, Addl. A.G., Haryana,
for the appellants.
None for the respondent.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)
1. This order shall dispose of the above noted two appeals.
2. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from RSA-
1606-1993.
3. State-defendants are in second appeal before this Court
challenging the findings recorded by both the Courts below.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043788
2024:PHHC:043788
RSA-1606-1993 (O & M) and
RSA-1607-1993 -2-
4. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that plaintiff-
respondent, who was posted a Sub-Divisional Engineer, was
placed under suspension on 18.07.1979 and departmental
proceedings were initiated against him. On the basis of the enquiry
report, impugned order bearing endorsement dated 01.09.1987 for
recovery of Rs.68,449/- was passed and he was reverted to the
post of Junior Engineer. Challenging both the orders, he filed a
civil suit for permanent injunction.
5. Upon notice, suit was contested by the defendants by raising
various preliminary objections and on merits it was submitted that
the plaintiff had defrauded the Government in connivance with
junior staff by preparing of fictitious Muster Rolls etc. He was
charge-sheeted and was found guilty in the departmental enquiry
resulting in passing of the punishment orders. Plaintiff filed a
replication reasserting the pleas taken in the plaint. On the basis of
the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and after they led
evidence, Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 27.08.1991,
declared both the orders to be illegal and void as also restrained
the defendants from effective recovery from the plaintiff until an
enquiry was held against him in accordance with law. Both the
plaintiff and defendants filed separate appeals. Vide judgment
dated 27.03.1993, learned Additional District Judge, Hisar,
dismissed the appeal filed by the defendants and in the appeal
preferred by the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court struck down
the liberty granted to the defendants to hold a legal enquiry. It is in
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043788
2024:PHHC:043788
RSA-1606-1993 (O & M) and
RSA-1607-1993 -3-
this backdrop that the State-defendant is in appeal before this
Court.
6. I have heard the State counsel and examined the record with his
able assistance.
7. Both the Courts have returned a concurrent finding that the
departmental enquiry held against the plaintiff is violative of the
principles of natural justice. It has been found that no witness was
produced by either of the parties on the basis of the documents and
statement of the Presenting Officer, who was not permitted to be
cross-examined, enquiry report was prepared. It was held that
enquiry was based on no evidence. It was also found by both the
Courts that the defendants did not produce the file of enquiry
proceedings and rather produced xerox copies of some documents,
which were never exhibited. Finding that there was a breach of
Rule 7 of the erstwhile Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules, 1952, the Courts found that the punishment orders
based on the findings of such an enquiry could not be sustained.
This Court finds no reason to interfere with the concurrent
findings recorded by both the Courts below as no material could
be referred to by the State counsel to dispel the findings.
8. At this stage, State counsel submits that the trial court vide its
judgment and decree has given liberty to the State to hold a fresh
enquiry, which has been struck down by the First Appellate Court.
He has requested that this right be given to the appellant.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the State counsel.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043788
2024:PHHC:043788
RSA-1606-1993 (O & M) and
RSA-1607-1993 -4-
10. Perusal of the paper-book of the instant appeal shows that an
application for stay of the impugned judgment and decree was
moved before this Court, which was specifically rejected. Appeal
has remained pending before this Court for the last more than
three decades. Plaintiff may have retired in the interregnum on
attaining the age of superannuation. This Court is of the view that
at this belated stage, granting of such an opportunity to the State is
not warranted and the prayer made by the State counsel is rejected.
11. There is no illegality or infirmity in the judgments passed by the
Courts below. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed and with no order
as to costs.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
02.04.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
