Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pepsu Road Transport Corp vs Harbans Singh on 4 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045697
2024:PHHC:045697
RSA-3025-1996 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(121)
RSA-3025-1996
Date of decision:- 04.04.2024
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala ... Appellant
Versus
Harbans Singh ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Khungar, Advocate for the respondent.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Defendant is in second appeal before this Court challenging the
judgment and decree dated 10.08.1996 passed by the First Appellate Court.
2. Brief facts may be noticed. Plaintiff-respondent, who was
employed as a Driver, was issued a charge-sheet dated 27.12.1990 on the
allegation of misbehavior with his colleagues and causing loss of ₹1482/-
to the department. It was alleged that he had behaved in an indisciplined
manner. Claiming that two charge-sheets have been issued to him on the
same cause and he could not be punished, plaintiff-respondent filed a suit
for declaration to the effect that order dated 05.05.1992, whereby two
increments were stopped with cumulative effect, be set aside and he be
granted allowances for the suspension period.
3. Upon notice, suit was contested by the defendants by filing a
joint written statement, wherein various preliminary objections were taken.
It was submitted that a proper enquiry under the Pepsu Road Transport
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045697
2024:PHHC:045697
RSA-3025-1996 -2-
Corporation (Conditions of Service and Service Regulations), 1981 was
held and the plaintiff-respondent was given full opportunity to defend
himself. It has been further submitted on the basis of the enquiry report, a
show cause notice was issued to him and after hearing him, punishment
order was passed. Plaintiff-respondent re-asserted his claim by filing a
replication. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed
and after they led evidence, Trial Court by judgment and decree dated
23.08.1993 dismissed the suit. Appeal, preferred by the plaintiff-appellant,
was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot and the suit
was decreed, as prayed for, in the plaint.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions as well as examined the record with their able
assistance.
5. First Appellate Court has recorded a finding that after the enquiry
report was submitted, its copy was never supplied to the plaintiff-
respondent along with the show cause notice, whereby punishment of
stoppage of three increments with cumulative effected was proposed. This
Court has examined the record. A perusal of the notings, which form a part
of the record, show that upon examining the enquiry report, punishing
authority proposed issuance of a show cause notice for stoppage of three
annual increments. There is nothing to show that the copy of the enquiry
report was ever sent to the plaintiff-respondent. As the plaintiff-respondent
was not supplied with the material, which was adverse to him, he did not
get a fair opportunity to rebut it. This Court is, therefore, of the view that
the First Appellate Court is right in coming to the conclusion that the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045697
2024:PHHC:045697
RSA-3025-1996 -3-
punishment order has been passed in breach of the principles of natural
justice. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings
recorded by the First Appellate Court, which deserve to be upheld.
6. At this stage, counsel for the defendant-appellant has submitted
that even if the finding of the First Appellate Court is accepted to be
correct, a chance deserves to be given to the appellant to supply a copy of
the enquiry report to the plaintiff-respondent, so that the proceeding can be
taken to its logical conclusion.
7. The submission made by the counsel for the defendant-appellant
deserves to be noticed and rejected. Litigation has remained pending for the
last more than three decades. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated
against the plaintiff-respondent in the year 1990. During the course of the
pendency of the litigation, plaintiff-respondent must have retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation. The request of the counsel
for the defendant-appellant is, therefore, declined.
8. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the
appeal, which is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.
04.04.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
Kamal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
