Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devi Lal vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 10 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048942
RSA-4750-2013 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:048942 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(206) RSA-4750-2013 (O&M)
Date of Decision : April 10, 2024
Devi Lal .. Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Ms. Vibha Tewari, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent
findings recorded by the Courts below by which, the civil suit filed by the
appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed and the said judgment and decree of
the trial Court vide order dated 30.10.2009 has been upheld by the lower
Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 12.07.2013.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff argues that the
judgments and decrees of the Courts below are perverse as the suit filed by
the appellant-plaintiff for restraining the Department from recovery of
Rs.22,27,790/- has not been dealt with in correct perspective keeping in
view the evidence/facts which had come on record.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048942
4. It may be noticed that before imposing the recovery of
Rs.22,27,790/-, the departmental proceedings were initiated against the
appellant-plaintiff wherein, upon proving of the allegations of causing loss
to the department, the recovery was ordered to be done from the appellant-
plaintiff to the tune of Rs.22,27,790/-. The said order was passed on
30.10.2009 by way of punishment, which has already attained finality.
5. It may be noticed that the said order was not even challenged
by the appellant-plaintiff while filing the civil suit. That being so, once an
order of punishment has been passed and the said order of punishment is not
under challenge, the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that
the recovery ordered after holding the disciplinary proceedings needs no
interference and no relief can be granted to the appellant-plaintiff in the
absence of any challenge to the order of punishment of recovery. Learned
counsel for the appellant-plaintiff concede the said fact that the order of
punishment of recovery imposed vide order dated 30.10.2003 was never
challenged and the same has attained finality.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has not been able to
point out any perversity in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below.
7. It is also a conceded position that the order of punishment is
not under challenge in the civil suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff. That
being the factual aspect, in the absence of any perversity shown to this
Court qua the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, which have been
impugned in the present appeal, no ground is made out for any interference
by this Court in the present appeal.
8. Dismissed.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048942
9. Any civil miscellaneous application pending if any, also stands
dismissed.
April 10, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
