Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prtc vs Jarnail Singh on 26 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060166
-1-
RSA-644 of 1994 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-644 of 1994 (O&M)
Reserved on: 03.04.2024
Pronounced on: 26.04.2024
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and others
......Appellants
Versus
Jarnail Singh
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by: - Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr. Rohit Singla, Advocate,
for the respondent.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the
judgment and decree dated 22.05.1992 passed by the Court of learned
Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda, whereby suit filed by the respondent-
plaintiff for declaration was decreed as well as against the judgment
and decree dated 08.10.1993 passed by the Court of learned Additional
District Judge, Bathinda, whereby appeal filed by the appellants against
the judgment and decree dated 22.05.1992, has been dismissed.
2. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made
as per their status in the civil suit. Briefly, plaintiff filed a suit for
declaration pleading therein that he was permanently posted as
1 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060166
RSA-644 of 1994 (O&M)
Conductor No. B-196 and served under Depot Manager, P.R.T.C.,
Bathinda-1 (defendant No. 6). His services were terminated by Depot
Manager, P.R.T.C., Barnala (defendant No. 5) vide order dated
30.03.1988, which is illegal, unconstitutional and ultravires. It is
pleaded that he has committed no wrong and no charge has been
proved against him; no proper and fair enquiry was conducted against
him according to the rules and regulations and the alleged enquiry was
illegal and ultravires based on mere conjectures and surmises; no
document, notice, charge-sheet or copy of the report of the inspectorate
was supplied to him to defend himself; no statement of any passenger
or driver had been recorded nor cash of the plaintiff was checked by the
raiding staff; the order has not been passed by the competent authority
and is neither speaking one; no proper opportunity was afforded to the
plaintiff to prove his case nor he was heard in person and the
punishment awarded was excessive and un-justified. He filed an appeal
against the said order to the higher authorities which was dismissed by
the Deputy General Manager (defendant No. 3) conveyed through letter
dated 10.01.1989 of the Administrative Officer, P.R.T.C. Patiala. The
appellate order, according to the plaintiff, is also illegal and ultravires
as the same has been passed without taking into consideration the
above said illegalities and irregularities and without going through the
relevant facts and record and without hearing the plaintiff. With these
allegations, the plaintiff sought a decree of declaration that the
impugned orders are illegal and ultravires and he continues to be in the
service of the defendants entitled to all service benefits.
2 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060166
RSA-644 of 1994 (O&M)
3. The defendants resisted the suit in their written statement.
The employment of the plaintiff as Conductor was admitted but it was
denied that he had un-blemished service record. It was admitted that the
services of the plaintiff were terminated by the Depot Manager, Barnala.
The said order was, however, stated to be legal and valid passed after
observing the rules and regulations. It was denied that the plaintiff was
not afforded any opportunity to defend himself or the order suffered
from any infirmity. It was further admitted that the plaintiff filed an
appeal against the said order which was dismissed. It was added that
the plaintiff was provided every opportunity to defend himself and was
also heard in person. The past service record of the plaintiff was also
perused which showed that he was warned for 35 times, censured 5
times, suspended 7 times, and increments stopped for 17 times and he
also once resigned and keeping in view this service record, the
punishment of removal from service was commensurate with the
misconduct. Two preliminary objections were raised that trial court had
nо territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and the suit was not
maintainable in the present form.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed: -
1) Whether the orders dated 30.3.88 passed by
conveyed to the plaintiff through the Administrative
Officer, defendant No. 4 vide letter dated 10.1.1989
are illegal, null and void and not binding upon the
plaintiff? OPP.
2) Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?
OPD.
3 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060166
RSA-644 of 1994 (O&M)
3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present
form? OPD.
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration
prayed for? OPD.
5) Relief.
5. Parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in
support of their respective contentions.
6. Learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated
22.05.1992 after appreciating the evidence on the file, decreed the suit
of the plaintiff-respondent.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred appeal before
the Appellate Court, which has been dismissed vide judgment and
decree dated 08.10.1993.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that
judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are based on
conjectures and surmises. He further contended that both the Courts
below have failed to appreciate the evidence available on record that a
proper enquiry was conducted and show-cause notice was served upon
the respondent. He further contended that all the legal norms and rules
were adhered to while making enquiry against the respondent. He
further contended that judgments and decrees of the Courts below
being against law are liable to be set aside and suit of the respondent-
plaintiff be dismissed. It has been wrongly held by the Courts below
that the Courts at Bathinda has the jurisdiction to try the suit.
9. Since no one appeared on behalf of the respondent, despite
service, the matter was heard on 03.04.2024 and the judgment was
4 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060166
RSA-644 of 1994 (O&M)
reserved. Thereafter, an application being CM-3871-C of 2024 was
preferred by the legal representatives of the respondent and the same
has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.04.2024 and legal
representatives of the respondent have been brought on record.
9-A. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
whole action has been taken by the appellants with pre-determined
mind as the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was considered by the
same authority i.e. Deputy General Manager, who issued first charge-
sheet to the plaintiff.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
11. Admittedly, respondent was working as Conductor with
the appellants-PRTC and on 01.01.1987, he was deputed on bus
No.PJG-7417 from Barnala to Delhi. The said bus was checked at bye-
pass Rohtak. Perusal of the record shows that six passengers travelling
from Julana to Rohtak and five passengers travelling from Lakhan
Majra to Rohtak were found travelling without tickets from whom the
respondent-plaintiff had charged full fare. On the report of the
Inspectorate, Deputy General Manager, PRTC, Patiala, served charge-
sheet upon the plaintiff accompanied by statement of allegations and
list of witnesses. Respondent-plaintiff did not file any reply and the
Deputy General Manager appointed Sh. G.S. Mela, Legal Advisor, as
enquiry officer to hold enquiry against the respondent-plaintiff. The
enquiry officer recorded the statements of three Inspectors and gave his
report holding the charges proved. Thereafter, Deputy General
5 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060166
RSA-644 of 1994 (O&M)
Manager issued show-cause notice to the respondent-plaintiff, to which
he filed reply. Respondent-plaintiff was called for personal hearing.
He raised the objection that Depot Manager, Barnala, was the
appointing authority, therefore, Depot Manager was supposed to issue
the charge-sheet. Hence, the Depot Manager was asked to issue fresh
charge-sheet. Thereafter, fresh charge-sheet was issued by the Depot
Manager. Respondent-plaintiff did not file any reply to the said
charge-sheet. Enquiry officer was appointed, who recorded the
statements of the checking staff and they were cross-examined by the
respondent-plaintiff. Respondent-plaintiff did not lead any evidence
and on consideration of the evidence, enquiry officer held the charges
established. Number of letters were issued to the respondent-plaintiff
for personal hearing, but he did not respond. Thereafter, Depot
Manager issued show-cause notice to the plaintiff for
removal/termination from service. However, respondent-plaintiff
failed to respond and his services were terminated by the Depot
Manager vide order dated 30.03.1988. Thereafter, respondent-plaintiff
filed departmental appeal, which has been rejected by the Deputy
General Manager, vide order dated 10.01.1989. It is apparent from the
record that all the legal norms and rules were followed while making
enquiry against the respondent-plaintiff. Respondent-plaintiff failed to
prove that due procedure was not followed while holding him guilty.
Rather, lower Appellate Court has observed that a proper enquiry was
conducted by the department.
6 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060166
RSA-644 of 1994 (O&M)
12. Even otherwise, the past record of the plaintiff shows that
he was warned for 35 times, censured 5 times, suspended 7 times,
increments were stopped for 17 times and he also once resigned.
Further, the scope of interference by the Courts in disciplinary matters
is very limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and
others v. P. Gunasekaran, 2015(1) S.C.T. 5 has considered the scope
of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings and has held
as under: -
"13. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully
disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an
appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-
appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer.
The finding on Charge No. I was accepted by the
disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary
proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a
second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise
of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the
evidence. The High Court can only see whether :
a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf;
c. there is violation of the principles of natural
justice in conducting the proceedings;
d. the authorities have disabled themselves from
reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations
extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;
e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant or extraneous
considerations;
7 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060166
RSA-644 of 1994 (O&M)
f. the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person
could ever have arrived at such conclusion;
g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed
to admit the admissible and material evidence;
h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously
admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the
finding;
i. the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the
High Court shall not:
(i). re-appreciate the evidence;
(ii). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in
case the same has been conducted in accordance
with law;
(iii). go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv). go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on
which findings can be based.
(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may
appear to be;
(vii). go into the proportionality of punishment
unless it shocks its conscience.
14. In one of the earliest decisions in State of Andhra
Pradesh and others v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963
Supreme Court 1723, many of the above principles have
been discussed and it has been concluded thus :
"7. ... The High Court is not constituted in a
proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a
court of appeal over the decision of the authorities
holding a departmental enquiry against a public
servant: it is concerned to determine whether the
enquiry is held by an authority competent in that
behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed
8 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060166
RSA-644 of 1994 (O&M)
in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural
justice are not violated. Where there is some
evidence, which the authority entrusted with the
duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which
evidence may reasonably support the conclusion
that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it
is not the function of the High Court in a petition for
a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and
to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence.
The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where
the departmental authorities have held the
proceedings against the delinquent in a manner
inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in
violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode
of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled
themselves from reaching a fair decision by some
considerations extraneous to the evidence and the
merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the
conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person
could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on
similar grounds. But the departmental authorities
are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the
sole judges of facts and if there be some legal
evidence on which their findings can be based, the
adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a
matter which can be permitted to be canvassed
before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ
under Article 226 of the Constitution."
15. In State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Chitra
Venkata Rao, (1975)2 SCC 557, the principles have been
further discussed at paragraph-21 to 24, which read as
follows :
9 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060166
RSA-644 of 1994 (O&M)
"21. The scope of Article 226 in dealing with
departmental inquiries has come up before this
Court. Two propositions were laid down by this
Court in State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao. First,
there is no warrant for the view that in considering
whether a public officer is guilty of misconduct
charged against him, the rule followed in criminal
trials that an offence is not established unless
proved by evidence beyond reasonable doubt to the
satisfaction of the Court must be applied. If that rule
be not applied by a domestic tribunal of inquiry the
High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution is not competent to declare the order of
the authorities holding a departmental enquiry
invalid. The High Court is not a court of appeal
under Article 226 over the decision of the
authorities holding a departmental enquiry against
a public servant. The Court is concerned to
determine whether the enquiry is held by an
authority competent in that behalf and according to
the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and
whether the rules of natural justice are not violated.
Second, where there is some evidence which the
authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry
has accepted and which evidence may reasonably
support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is
guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High
Court to review the evidence and to arrive at an
independent finding on the evidence. The High
Court may interfere where the departmental
authorities have held the proceedings against the
delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of
natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules
prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the
10 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060166
RSA-644 of 1994 (O&M)
authorities have disabled themselves from reaching
a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to
the evidence and the merits of the case or by
allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant
considerations or where the conclusion on the very
face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that
no reasonable person could ever have arrived at
that conclusion. The departmental authorities are, if
the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole
judges of facts and if there is some legal evidence
on which their findings can be based, the adequacy
or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which
can be permitted to be canvassed before the High
Court in a proceeding for a writ under Article 226.
22. Again, this Court in Railway Board,
representing the Union of India, New Delhi v.
Niranjan Singh said that the High Court does not
interfere with the conclusion of the disciplinary
authority unless the finding is not supported by any
evidence or it can be said that no reasonable person
could have reached such a finding. In Niranjan
Singh case this Court held that the High Court
exceeded its powers in interfering with the findings
of the disciplinary authority on the charge that the
respondent was instrumental in compelling the shut-
down of an air compressor at about 8.15 a.m. on
May 31, 1956. This Court said that the Enquiry
Committee felt that the evidence of two persons that
the respondent led a group of strikers and
compelled them to close down their compressor
could not be accepted at its face value. The General
Manager did not agree with the Enquiry Committee
on that point. The General Manager accepted the
evidence. This Court said that it was open to the
11 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060166
RSA-644 of 1994 (O&M)
General Manager to do so and he was not bound by
the conclusion reached by the committee. This
Court held that the conclusion reached by the
disciplinary authority should prevail and the High
Court should not have interfered with the
conclusion.
23. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari
under Article 226 is a supervisory jurisdiction. The
Court exercises it not as an appellate court. The
findings of fact reached by an inferior court or
tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence
are not reopened or questioned in writ proceedings.
An error of law which is apparent on the face of the
record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error
of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In
regard to a finding of fact recorded by a tribunal, a
writ can be issued if it is shown that in recording the
said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to
admit admissible and material evidence, or had
erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which
has influenced the impugned finding. Again if a
finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would
be regarded as an error of law which can be
corrected by a writ of certiorari. A finding of fact
recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged on
the ground that the relevant and material evidence
adduced before the Tribunal is insufficient or
inadequate to sustain a finding. The adequacy or
sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the
inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding
are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
See Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan.
24. The High Court in the present case assessed the
entire evidence and came to its own conclusion. The
12 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060166
RSA-644 of 1994 (O&M)
High Court was not justified to do so. Apart from
the aspect that the High Court does not correct a
finding of fact on the ground that the evidence is not
sufficient or adequate, the evidence in the present
case which was considered by the Tribunal cannot
be scanned by the High Court to justify the
conclusion that there is no evidence which would
justify the finding of the Tribunal that the
respondent did not make the journey. The Tribunal
gave reasons for its conclusions. It is not possible
for the High Court to say that no reasonable person
could have arrived at these conclusions. The High
Court reviewed the evidence, reassessed the
evidence and then rejected the evidence as no
evidence. That is precisely what the High Court in
exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari
should not do."
These principles have been succinctly summed-up by the
living legend and centenarian Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer in
State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh, (1977) 2
SCC 491. To quote the unparalled and inimitable
expressions:
"4. .... in a domestic enquiry the strict and
sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian
Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are
logically probative for a prudent mind are
permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence
provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It
is true that departmental authorities and
Administrative Tribunals must be careful in
evaluating such material and should not glibly
swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under
the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is
not necessary to cite decisions nor text books,
13 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060166
RSA-644 of 1994 (O&M)
although we have been taken through case-law and
other authorities by counsel on both sides. The
essence of a judicial approach is objectivity,
exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations
and observance of rules of natural justice. Of
course, fair play is the basis and if perversity or
arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of
judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such
finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot
be held good. ..."
16. In all the subsequent decisions of this Court upto the
latest in Chennai Water Supply and Sewarage Board v.
T.T. Murali Babu, 2014(2) S.C.T. 193 : (2014)4 SCC 108,
these principles have been consistently followed adding
practically nothing more or altering anything.
17. On Article I, the disciplinary authority, while imposing
the punishment of compulsory retirement in the impugned
order dated 28.02.2000, had arrived at the following
findings:
"Article-I was held as proved by the Inquiry
authority after evaluating the evidence adduced in
the case. Under the circumstances of the case, the
evidence relied on viz., letter dated 11.12.92 written
by Shri P. Gunasekaran, provides a reasonable
nexus to the charge framed against him and he did
not controvert the contents of the said letter dated
11.12.92 during the time of inquiry. Nor did he
produce any defence witness during the inquiry to
support his claims including that on 23.11.92 he left
the office on permission. There is nothing to
indicate that he was handicapped in producing his
defence witness. ..."
18. The disciplinary authority, on scanning the inquiry
report and having accepted it, after discussing the
14 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060166
RSA-644 of 1994 (O&M)
available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the
Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view
of the disciplinary authority, it was not at all open to the
High Court to re-appreciate the evidence in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India.
19. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution
of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so
long as the punishment does not shock the conscience of
the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority
has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked
integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as
to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly
there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity
according to Oxford dictionary is "moral uprightness;
honesty". It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence,
trustfulness, openness, sincerity, blamelessness,
immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness,
righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour,
reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity,
respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc. In short,
it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a code
of moral values."
13. The said judgment has been followed by a Division Bench
of this Court in Union of India and others v. Sushil Kumar Vashisht
and another, 2016(4) S.C.T. 77.
14. In view of the above, appeal is allowed. Judgments and
decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the suit of the respondent-
plaintiff is dismissed. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
15 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060166
RSA-644 of 1994 (O&M)
15. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
26.04.2024 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
16 of 16
