Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs J.P. Chander on 19 January, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007272
2024:PHHC:007272
RSA-2668-1994 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(209)
RSA-2668-1994
Date of decision:- 19.01.2024
State of Punjab and others ... Appellants
Versus
J.P.Chander, Executive Engineer and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Vikas Arora, AAG, Punjab
None for the respondents.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Appellants-defendants are in second appeal before this Court
challenging the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts
below.
2. Plaintiffs-respondents filed a civil suit for declaration that Memo
dated 29.06.1988 and 09.08.1988 issued by the Department, whereby panel
comprising of different officers has been constituted to hold an enquiry
regarding reading of measurements, are void, illegal without jurisdiction
and authority as well as against the Departmental Codal Rules with
consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants
from initiating any disciplinary or penal action against them on the basis of
the report submitted by such a panel.
3. Plaintiffs, who was working as Engineers, were responsible for
the execution of repair work of various State roads. It has been pleaded that
the repair work was satisfactorily carried out according to the provisions
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007272
2024:PHHC:007272
RSA-2668-1994 -2-
made in the sanctioned estimate and as per specifications, which were duly
verified by an official of the Accountant General, Punjab, before making
payment. In the discharge of official duties, plaintiff-respondent No.1
imposed penalty of Rs.68,290/- upon a contractor due to his failure in
making the supplies and he submitted a false complaint alleging
deficiencies in the works executed in the year 1987-88. The complaint was
investigated by the then Chief Vigilance Officer and no deficiency was
found in the works. In the rains and floods, road was damaged and the
berms were washed away. Impugned Memos were subsequently issued
constituting panel of officers to examine the work carried out by them.
Pleading that the defendants had no authority or jurisdiction to constitute
the panel, civil suit, described above, was filed.
4. Upon being served, respondents filed a written statement
contesting the suit on various grounds. It was pleaded that the panel was
constituted after getting permission from the Chief Engineer after substance
was found in the complaint submitted against the plaintiffs. Countering the
stand of the defendants-appellants, replication was filed. After framing of
issues and leading evidence by the parties, Trial Court by judgment and
decree dated 28.08.1991 accepted the suit and granted declaration as well as
permanent injunction as prayed for. State-defendants remained
unsuccessful in the first appeal.
5. In all fairness, learned State counsel submits that at this stage
even if the appeal is accepted, and the impugned Memos constituting panel
are upheld, it will not be feasible to carry out the inspection of the roads,
which by now must have been relaid a number of times.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007272
2024:PHHC:007272
RSA-2668-1994 -3-
6. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the appeal has
become infructuous due to efflux of time and is dismissed as such.
19.01.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
Kamal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:007272
3 of 3
