Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ved Pal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049142-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:049142-DB
(105) LPA-896-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 10.04.2024
Ved Pal .......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present:- Mr. Johan Kumar, Advocate for the appellant.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
The present letters patent appeal is directed against the order
dated 23.01.2024 of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP-20248-2012
filed by a retired employee, which we feel is totally misconceived. Challenge
in the writ petition was to the charge-sheet dated 23.03.1992 (Annexure P-2)
and the adverse entry made vide order dated 25.01.1997 (Annexure P-4).
Challenge had also been raised to the order dated 01.07.1999 (Annerxure P-6)
whereby the appeal was dismissed by the Transport Commissioner by noting
that the adverse entry/honesty was shown to be doubtful in confidential report
for the year 1991-1992, on account of the fact that the employee was in
Gohana Sub-Centre when he was caught while stealing old kamanies and the
said fact was also recordedin the ACR (Annexure P-8).
2. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge is
well justified in dismissing the writ petition, which was filed in the year 2012.
Initially an attempt had been made to nullify the proceedings by filing civil
suit seeking declaration to the said fact. The learned Trial Court had dismissed
the suit being barred by time as the same was not filed within 3 years, since
the appeal was dismissed against the adverse entry vide order dated
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049142-DB
01.07.1999 (Annexure P-6)and the civil suit was initiated only on 21.07.2004.
The appeal filed before the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh was also
dismissed, vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2010 (Annexure P-10),
whereby the finding on issue No.4 were confirmed regarding limitation. The
regular second appeal filed before this Court was dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to file a fresh suit or writ petition, subject to payment of costs of
Rs.5,000/-, vide order dated 06.07.2012 (Annexure P-11). A perusal of the
writ petition would go on to show that there is no averment that cost was ever
deposited.
3. In such circumstances to initiate a second round of litigation is
totally misconceived, as the Courts below had rightly come to the conclusion
that suit itself was time barred. The findings, thus, recorded by the learned
Single Judge as such do not warrant any interference, whereby it has been held
that lenient view was taken not to impose any punishment except the denial of
the pay during the suspension and to record the "doubtful" entry in the service
record. Even otherwise we are of the considered opinion that the conduct of
the employee is something which can be commented upon by the authorities
and it is not for the Writ Court to superimpose its view.
4. Resultantly, there is no merit in the present appeal and same is
hereby dismissed in limine. All pending civil miscellaneous application also
stand disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
10.04.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
