Hafed vs Sc Jindal
2024 Latest Caselaw 1635 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Hafed vs Sc Jindal on 24 January, 2024

Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009231




RSA-2792-1995                    2024:PHHC:009231                  1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


(102)                            RSA-2792-1995
                                 Date of Decision : January 24, 2024


Managing Director, HAFED                                    .. Appellant



                                 Versus

SC Jindal and others                                        .. Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI


Present:     Mr. Rajinder Goel, Advocate, for the appellant.


HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and

decree of the Courts below by which, the suit filed by the respondent-

plaintiff has been decreed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the challenge in

the suit was with regard to Exhibit P-7 whereby, the recovery was imposed

upon the respondent-plaintiff, which recovery was held to be bad by the

Courts below on the ground that the respondent-plaintiff had no role to play

in the payment of excess amount to the driver namely Sultan Singh as being

alleged in the said recovery notice.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once, the

Department had already passed an order of recovery, the Courts below did

not had jurisdiction appreciate the fact as to whether, the recovery is valid

or not.

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009231

4. Qua the said argument, it may be noticed that both the Courts

below have come to the conclusion that there was no power with the

respondent-plaintiff to pass any order qua the suspension of the driver

namely Sultan Singh. Further, the respondent-plaintiff had no role in

making excess payment to the said Sultan Singh so as to not deduct his

salary while making the payment of subsistence allowance.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to prove as

to how the findings recorded by the Courts below are perverse in any

manner qua the jurisdiction of the respondent-plaintiff with regard to the

making of excess payment to driver Sultan Singh during his suspension

period.

6. In the absence of any perversity being shown to this Court, the

finding of fact which have been recorded by the Courts below so as to allow

the suit and dismiss the appeal need not to be interfered with.

7. No other argument was raised.

8. Keeping in view the above, in the absence of any perversity

being brought to the notice of this Court qua the finding of the fact, no relief

can be granted to the appellant in this regular second appeal.

9. Dismissed.

January 24, 2024                 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha                                  JUDGE


             Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
             Whether reportable       : Yes/No




                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:009231

                                      2 of 2