Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Pb vs Pritam Singh on 15 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049760
RSA No. 3102 of 1999 1 2024:PHHC:049760
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
204
RSA No. 3102 of 1999
Date of Decision: 15.04.2024
State of Punjab .....Appellant
Versus
Pritam Singh .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Ms. Amrita Garg, AAG, Punjab
for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
1. Defendant-Appellant is in second appeal before this Court
challenging the concurrent finding recorded by the Courts below.
2. Pritam Singh-Conductor filed a civil suit for declaration to the
effect that order dated 19.11.1993 whereby punishment of stoppage of one
increment with cumulative effect was imposed is illegal, null and void. He
pleaded that the disciplinary proceedings had been conducted and the order
had been passed in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice.
3. Upon notice, suit was contested by the defendant by filing of
written statement wherein it was submitted that the plaintiff was afforded
ample opportunity to defend himself and the procedure prescribed under the
Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 was followed.
On the basis of pleadings, issues were framed and after the parties led
evidence, trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 09.05.1997 decreed the
suit. Defendants remained unsuccessful in the first appeal which was
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049760
RSA No. 3102 of 1999 2 2024:PHHC:049760
rejected by judgment dated 22.03.1999 resulting in the institution of the
present appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and examined
the record with her able assistance.
5. First Appellate Court has rejected the appeal on two grounds.
Firstly, the Court has come to the conclusion that there is an overlapping in
the charges framed and that they were vague. Even if the argument of the
State counsel is accepted that both the charges i.e dereliction of duty and
embezzlement are different, she has not been able to satisfy the Court insofar
as the second ground for rejection is concerned.
6. First Appellate Court has returned a finding that the impugned
order dated 19.11.1993 which forms part of Inquiry File, Ex.D1, has been
passed in a mechanical manner. A perusal of the punishment order shows
that after noticing that the reply has been filed by the plaintiff which has not
been considered, the Punishing Authority has imposed penalty of stoppage
of increment with cumulative effect. The explanation of the plaintiff has not
been discussed nor any reason has been given for imposing the punishment.
This Court is therefore of the view that the order is cryptic and has been
rightly set aside by both the Courts below. There is no infirmity in the
judgments passed by both the Courts.
7. At this stage, learned State counsel has submitted that the State
should be given an opportunity to pass a fresh order after considering the
reply filed by the plaintiff-respondent. The request made by the State
counsel cannot be accepted. The charge against the plaintiff-respondent was
of embezzling an amount of Rs. 10/-. Litigation has remained pending
before the Court, for the last almost three decades and in the interregnum,
the plaintiff-respondent must have retired from service on attaining the age
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049760
RSA No. 3102 of 1999 3 2024:PHHC:049760
of superannuation.
8. Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal the same is
hereby dismissed.
15.04.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes
3 of 3
