Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bakshish Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 10 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049207
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:049207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
214 RSA-2443-2016 (O&M)
Decided on :10.04.2024
BAKSHISH SINGH .APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR . . . RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
PRESENT: Mr. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
1. In the present regular second appeal, the challenge is to the
judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below by which, the suit filed
by the appellant-plaintiff was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the
trial Court vide order dated 19.02.2014 has been upheld by the Lower
Appellate Court.
2. The challenge in the civil suit is to the order of punishment
imposing the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative
effect upon the appellant-plaintiff.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the orders passed
by the punishing authority and the Appellate Authority are not the speaking
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049207
RSA-2443-2016 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:049207
orders and have been passed without application of mind, hence, both the
orders are liable to be set-aside, which issue has not been noticed by the
Courts below while passing the judgments and decrees.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits
that the detailed order has been passed by the Punishing Authority giving
the reasons for imposing the punishment on the appellant-plaintiff and the
appellate authority has also passed a detailed order giving the reasons for
not accepting the appeal of the appellant hence, the said order have rightly
been upheld by the Courts below while dismissing the suit as well as the
appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. It may be noticed that the Court does not sit as an appellate
authority with regard to disciplinary proceedings which are initiated against
an employee. It is settled principle of law that the Court can only look into
the procedural aspect of holding the disciplinary proceedings. The Court
cannot decide as to whether, the punishment imposed upon an employee is
valid or not unless and until it is a case of no evidence.
7. In the present case, the concurrent findings have been recorded
by the Courts below that the punishment imposed upon the appellant-
plaintiff after following the due process on the basis of evidence on record.
That being so, no grievance can be raised by the appellant.
8. The second arguments which has been raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant is that there is no application of mind while
passing the impugned order of punishment. This argument is also incorrect.
It is a conceded fact that during the disciplinary proceedings, a show cause
notice was issued to the appellant-plaintiff for dismissal from service.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049207
RSA-2443-2016 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:049207
Ultimately, keeping in view the reply filed to the said show cause notice,
the authorities decided to impose the punishment of stopping three
increments with cumulative effect upon the appellant-plaintiff. That fact
itself shows that there was an application of mind by which the proposed
punishment was not imposed and a reduced punishment was imposed upon
the appellant-plaintiff. Even the Appellate authority has passed a detailed
order holding that the eqnuiry was conducted as per the rules and the
punishment has been imposed commensurate to the allegations prove. That
being so, the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out
any perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below.
9. Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
present case recorded herein above, no ground is made out for interference in
the present regular second appeal, hence the same stands dismissed.
10. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed
of.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
10.04.2024
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
