Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Lal Chand on 30 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059245
RSA-1249-1999 (O&M) -1-
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:059245
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
204
RSA-1249-1999 (O&M)
Date of Decision:30.04.2024
The Haryana State through Collector, Hisar
.... Appellant
Vs
ASI Lal Chand (since deceased) through LRs.
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Aman Bahri, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
for the appellant.
Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate for the respondent.
***
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Defendant-appellant is in second appeal before this Court
challenging the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the courts
below.
2. Pleaded case of the plaintiff-respondent, who was working
as an ASI, is that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him
on the allegation that under the influence of liquor, he misbehaved
with a Priest of Durga Mandir, Ratia, and demanded illegal
gratification from him. On conclusion of enquiry, he was found guilty
of the charges and vide order dated 04.01.1994, punishment of
stoppage of two future annual increments with permanent effect was
imposed. Departmental appeal filed by him was rejected on
19.04.1994. Challenging both the orders, he filed a suit for declaration
and consequential relief.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059245
RSA-1249-1999 (O&M) -2-
3. Upon notice, suit was contested by the defendant-appellant
by filing a written statement wherein it was stated that enquiry was
conducted in accordance with the rules and principles of natural
justice were duly complied with. It was further submitted that the
plaintiff-respondent was given ample opportunity to defend himself.
Plaintiff filed a replication reiterating the averments of the plaint. On
the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and after
they led evidence, trial Court by judgment dated 30.09.1997 decreed
the suit and set aside both the impugned orders. However, defendant
was given an opportunity to initiate fresh departmental proceedings
against plaintiff. Defendant remained unsuccessful in the first appeal,
which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Hisar, vide
judgment dated 30.09.1998. They have approached this Court in the
above background.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have considered
their respective submissions besides examining the record with their
able assistance.
5. In his cross-examination, Balwant Singh (DW-1) has
admitted that the Inquiry Officer questioned and cross-examined the
witnesses of the parties. It is, therefore, evident that he has actively
participated in the inquiry proceedings. An Inquiry Officer has to be
non-partisan. He has to act as a quasi-judicial authority and his role is
that of a Judge. Under no circumstance can he act both as a judge and
as a prosecutor and cross-examine the witnesses adduced either
by the Department or the delinquent employee. He may
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:059245
RSA-1249-1999 (O&M) -3-
put a question or two, to the witnesses to clarify a statement or
document, but he cannot be permitted to conduct a detailed cross-
examination of the witnesses as has done in the present case. The
entire approach of the Inquiry Officer is faulty and clearly establishes
that he was biased. Reference can be made to judgment of this Court
in State of Punjab versus Mam Chand 1993 (3) RSJ 238. Inquiry
report submitted by him cannot form the basis of penal action.
6. Plaintiff has proved on the record that no opportunity of
personal hearing was given to him before passing the punishment
order. Hearing of an employee is an essential component of principle
of natural justice, particularly, when an order, which is adverse to his
interest, is being passed. It is, therefore, evident that the punishment
order has been passed in the flagrant violation of principle of natural
justice. Therefore, there is no infirmity with the impugned judgments
and decrees passed by both the courts.
7. Finding no merit in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed with
no order as to costs.
8. At this stage, counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits
that the respondent has unfortunately expired during the pendency of
the appeal. In the light of this development, the liberty given by the
trial Court to the appellant to initiate the fresh inquiry would also be a
futile exercise and the liberty is hereby withdrawn.
30.04.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
pooja saini JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
