Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pseb Etc vs Harminder Jit Singh on 3 July, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082333
RSA-328-1994
-1-
223
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-328-1994
Date of decision:-03.07.2024
The Punjab State Electricity Board and anr.
...Appellants
Versus
Harminderjit Singh
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present : Ms.Monica Chhibber Sharma, Advocate with
Ms.Priyanka Goyal, Advocate
for the appellants.
None for respondent.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
1. By way of present second appeal, defendants/appellants
have challenged the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the
Courts below.
2. Factual matrix, in brief, leading to the filing of the appeal
may be noticed. The plaintiff - respondent, who was working as a
Lower Division Clerk was placed under suspension and was served with
a charge-sheet dated 30.10.1986. He submitted his reply, which was not
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082333
RSA-328-1994
found to be satisfactory and by punishment order bearing No.363 dated
15.09.1987, one increment was stopped without future effect. He filed a
civil suit challenging the punishment order, which was decreed vide
judgment dated 12.03.1990. Vide order dated 05.10.1987 the defendants
treated the period of suspension as leave of the kind due, which has been
impugned in a suit for declaration.
3. Upon notice, suit was contested by the defendants by
submitting that the plaintiff was placed under suspension vide order
dated 09.10.1986 as his work and conduct was found to be
unsatisfactory. It was submitted that the punishment order has been set
aside by the Trial Court, but appeal is pending before the learned
Additional District Judge, Sangrur.
4. Plaintiff filed replication controverting the stand taken by
the defendants. Issues were framed on the pleadings of the parties, who
led evidence in support of their case. After hearing, the Trial Court by
judgment dated 27.05.1993 decreed the suit and held that the plaintiff -
respondent is entitled to be treated on duty for all intent and purposes
and is entitled to all the consequential benefits. First appeal preferred by
the defendants was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge,
Sangrur by judgment dated 24.07.1993 as the appeal was found to be
barred by time. In the above backdrop, the defendants are before this
Court by way of present appeal.
5. I have heard counsel for the appellants and considered her
respective submissions.
6. Ms.Monica Chhibber Sharma, Advocate for the appellants
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082333
RSA-328-1994
has fairly conceded that the appellants have failed upto the High Court
and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court on 12.03.1990
has been affirmed by this Court. She has placed on record a copy of
order dated 10.10.2023 passed by this Court in RSA-1138-1993, which
is reproduced as under:
"1. The learned counsel representing the appellant in both the
regular second appeals submits that the findings of fact arrived at
by the courts below cannot be successfully challenged by the
appellant as there is a fundamental defect in the procedure
adopted while punishing the respondents in both the suits. It is
submitted that, in fact, the charge sheet was issued to the
respondent-employee under Regulation 8 of the Punjab State
Electricity Board Employees (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations,
1971. Whereas, after receipt of the reply, by a non-speaking and
cryptic order minor punishment was awarded. He submits that in
view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Sarupinder
Singh vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and another, (CWP
No.16241 of 2005, decided on 07.05.2007), he is unable to draw
the attention of the court to any the judgment passed by the courts
below.
2. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, these two appeals are
dismissed.
3. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of."
7. It is clear from the above that the punishment order dated
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082333
RSA-328-1994
15.09.1987 passed by the appellants was declared to be illegal by the
trial Court. The appellants lost upto the High Court and the second
appeal filed by them has been dismissed by the above reproduced order.
As a consequence, order dated 09.10.1986 by which the plaintiff -
respondent was placed under suspension could not have been passed and
has been rightly set aside by the trial Court. Although first appeal
preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Additional
District Judge on the ground of limitation, but in view of the subsequent
developments noticed above, no fruitful purpose would be served in
remanding the appeal to the First Appellate Court.
8. Appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
03.07.2024 JUDGE
Brij
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
