Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rachhpal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055928
1
RSA-1316 of 1994 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1316 of 1994 (O&M)
Reserved on: 16.04.2024
Pronounced on: 24.04.2024
Rachhpal Singh
......Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by: - Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Teevar Sharma, AAG, Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the
judgment and decree 25.09.1993, passed by the Court of learned
Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby appeal preferred by the
respondents-defendants against the judgment and decree dated
04.12.1992, passed by the Court of learned Sub Judge Ist Class,
Amritsar, has been accepted and suit of the appellant-plaintiff for
declaration, has been dismissed.
2. Parties to the lis are being referred as per their status
before the trial Court. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a
suit for declaration to the effect the order dated 19.01.1989 passed by
defendant No.3, whereby his four annual increments with future effect
have been withheld and the order dated 09.12.1988 passed by
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055928
RSA-1316 of 1994 (O&M)
defendant No.3 whereby two annual increments of the plaintiff were
withheld are illegal, null and void, arbitrary, unconstitutional and are
liable to be set aside, and the plaintiff is entitled to be paid all arrears of
pay and emoluments, illegally withheld by the defendants. The plaintiff
has alleged in the plaint that on 17.08.1988, he was deployed on bus
No.PJC 146 which was coming from Paunta Sahib to Amritsar and it
was checked by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-l
and Inspector Shri Mudhal at village Manawala, and the General
Manager issued chits for change and replacement of tyres to bus
conductor Sewinder Singh No.85 who had submitted complaint against
the plaintiff under pressure of the officers that said Bus No.PJC-146
was driven by a driver of private company i.e. Majha Transport
Company but actually the plaintiff was driving the bus and even at the
time of above said inspection by General Manager. Subsequently, the
plaintiff was charge sheeted vide No. 2045/TA dated01.08.1988 and
inquiry was held by the Inquiry Officer D.W. Ferozepur, Lal Singh, that
the plaintiff is innocent of the charges vide report dated 28.11.1988.
General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar vide his orders ignored
the report of the Inquiry Officer and rather issued a show cause notice
vide No.4123/Steno dated 27.12.1988 to the plaintiff. The General
Manager, vide his order dated 19.01.1989, withheld four annual
increments of the plaintiff with future effect and vide the same order he
has held that the plaintiff is not entitled to any arrears of pay for the
suspension period. The said order is illegal, null and void and
unconstitutional and is liable to be cancelled and the plaintiff is entitled
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055928
RSA-1316 of 1994 (O&M)
to draw his increments and also arrears of pay and emoluments for the
suspension period. The order dated08.12.1988, passed by defendant
No.3, whereby he has withheld two annual increments on 21.05.1986 is
also illegal null and void, unconstitutional and the same is liable to be
cancelled and the plaintiff is entitled to draw his annual increments and
arrears of pay upto date. The plaintiff has served a notice under Section
80 CPC before filing of the present suit on 05.04.1989. The plaintiff
prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed.
3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. The
defendant appeared in the Court and filed written statement alleging
that the plaint was not well drafted and as such the suit is liable to be
dismissed. The Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try
the present suit as the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are
applicable in the present case. The plaintiff has not served a valid
notice under CPC before filing of the present suit. The defendants have
further alleged that the chargesheet dated 21.08.1988 was served upon
the plaintiff, the Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Punishing
Authority and the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 28.11.1988 was
received. The plaintiff was served a show cause notice dated
27.12.1988, on the basis of the report and dissenting note by the
Punishing Authority with the report of the Inquiry Officer. The order
dated 19.01.1987 is wrongly mentioned, in fact four increments of the
plaintiff were stopped vide order dated 19.01.1989, and the said order
is legal and valid and binding on the plaintiff. The said order was
passed after adopting the procedure laid down in the rules and after
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055928
RSA-1316 of 1994 (O&M)
giving full opportunity to the plaintiff to defend his case. There is no
order dated 21.07.1988 by which two increments of the plaintiff were
withheld. The order dated 09.12.1988, was passed by the Punishing
Authority, after adopting the proper procedure and full opportunity was
afforded to the plaintiff before passing the aforesaid order. The said
order is legal and is binding on the plaintiff.
4. The plaintiff filed the replication denying the allegations
of the defendants. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues
were framed: -
1. Whether the orders dt. 19.1.87, 21.7.88, 9,12.88 and
21.5.86 are illegal , void and inoperative against the
rights of the plaintiff and are thus liable to be set
aside ? OPP
2. Whether the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to
entertain and try the present suit? OPD
2A. Whether a legal and valid notice u/s 80 CPC was
served upon the defendants before filling the present
suit. If not to what effect ? OPP
3. Relief.
5. The parties led their respective evidence. The Court of the
first instance, after appreciating evidence on record decreed the suit
filed by the plaintiff qua order dated 19.01.1989 and dismissed the
same with regard to order dated 09.12.1988.
6. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of
the trial Court, respondents preferred an appeal before the lower
appellate Court, which has been accepted vide judgment and decree
dated 25.09.1993. Hence, this appeal.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055928
RSA-1316 of 1994 (O&M)
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
learned lower Appellate Court wrongly reversed the well-reasoned
judgment of the trial Court. He further contended that appellant was
found innocent by the enquiry officer, however, punishing authority
without following the proper procedure illegally withheld four annual
increments of the appellant vide order dated 19.01.1989. He further
contended that judgment and decree of the learned lower Appellate
Court being based on surmises and conjectures is liable to be reversed.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-
State has contended that appeal of the respondents has rightly been
accepted by the learned lower Appellate Court as the petitioner did not
challenge the order dated 19.01.1989.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
10. Perusal of the record shows that chargesheet dated
21.08.1988 was served upon the plaintiff; Inquiry Officer was
appointed by the punishing Authority. The plaintiff was served a show
cause notice dated 27.12.1988, on the basis of the report of the Inquiry
Officer and dissenting note by the punishing Authority with the report
of the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, the Punishing Authority passed the
order dated 19.01.1989 stopping four annual increments of the
appellant-plaintiff. The said order was passed after following the
procedure laid down in the rules and after giving full opportunity to the
plaintiff to defend his case. When the disciplinary enquiry is conducted
for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the Court is to
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055928
RSA-1316 of 1994 (O&M)
examine and determine: (i) whether the enquiry was held by the
competent authority; (ii) whether rules of natural justice are complied
with; (iii) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some
evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of
fact or conclusion. It is well-settled law that punishing authority may
or may not agree with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer. In
the present case, this Court does not find any fault with the procedure
followed by the department while punishing the appellant-plaintiff.
Moreover, appellant has not placed on record the order of punishment
dated 19.01.1989, therefore, the same was wrongly set aside by the trial
Court.
11. No question of law muchless substantial question of law
arises for consideration in the present appeal.
12. Dismissed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
24.04.2024 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
