Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Others vs Hans Raj on 8 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047412
RSA No. 576 of 1997 2024:PHHC:047412
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(206) RSA No. 576 of 1997
Date of Decision : 08.04.2024
The State of Punjab and another
...Appellants
Versus
Hans Raj
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for the appellants.
Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate for the respondent.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. In the present regular second appeal, the challenge is to the
judgment and decree of the lower appellate court vide order dated
13.09.1996 by which judgment and decree of the trial court vide order
dated 03.11.1992 has been set-aside and the suit filed by the respondent-
plaintiff has been partly allowed qua certain punishments imposed upon
him.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that
there has to be a specific challenge to the punishment orders before, the
said orders can be directed to be ignored by the court and in the present
appeal, the only prayer of the respondent-plaintiff was for pay fixation on
the basis of the length of service keeping in view the increment granted to
the respondent-plaintiff.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047412
RSA No. 576 of 1997 2024:PHHC:047412
3. Learned counsel for the appellants-defendants submits that
out of 04 increments stopped, the claim of the respondent-plaintiff was
barred by period of limitation and was declined by the trial court vide
order dated 03.11.1992 as well as by the lower appellate court vide order
dated 13.09.1996 but the lower appellate court granted the benefit qua
punishments, which were challenged within the period of limitation on
the ground that the order passed by the punishing authority was totally
cryptic and non-speaking.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants-defendants
and have gone through the record with his able assistance.
5. It may be noticed that the appeal was preferred in the year
1996 and 27 years have elapsed since then. There was no interim order
and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court must have been
executed and even the respondent-plaintiff must have retired from service
since long.
6. Further, the benefit which has been given to the respondent-
plaintiff, is only qua the punishments, which were within the period of
limitation keeping in view the date on which the civil suit was filed. A
finding has already been recorded on the basis of the evidence, which has
come on record that none of the order is speaking and give the reasons for
stopping the increment and cryptic order has been passed.
7. It is a settled principle of law that the punishing authority is
directed to pass a reasoned order for inflicting the punishment upon the
respondent-plaintiff so that the employee should know as to what
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047412
RSA No. 576 of 1997 2024:PHHC:047412
weighed with the mind of the authorities concerned while passing the
order of punishment so as to avail appropriate remedy.
8. Keeping in view the fact that it is not disputed before this
Court that the order of punishment passed by the punishing authority,
benefit qua which has been given to the respondent-plaintiff are cryptic,
coupled with the fact that the respondent-plaintiff has already retired from
service since long and the judgment of the lower appellate court has
already been executed, no ground is made out for any interference by this
Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case as no perversity
has been pointed out in the judgment of the lower appellate court.
9. Dismissed.
Any miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.
April 8th, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
