Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab Etc vs Tilak Raj on 3 July, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082357
RSA-2697-1998
-1-
229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2697-1998
Date of decision:-03.07.2024
The Punjab State and another
...Appellants
Versus
Tilak Raj
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present : Mr.Anil Bansal, DAG, Punjab
for the appellants.
Mr.Sachin Kalia, Advocate for
Mr.R.S. Bajaj, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
1. Defendants - appellants are in second appeal assailing the
concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below.
2. Pleaded case of the plaintiff - respondent, who was
working as a Sub-Inspector in the Food and Supplies Department, is that
after the suspension of a colleague, he took charge of the record of his
seat. File of M/s Punjab Cement Store, Bhogpur was not shown to him
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082357
RSA-2697-1998
as it was in the possession of Shri David, another colleague, who was
dealing with it. After his transfer, by memo dated 01.02.1988, District
Food and Supplies, Controller, Jalandhar issued a show-cause notice to
him to give an explanation about nine official files, including that of M/s
Punjab Cement Store, which were missing. Plaintiff submitted his reply,
but was placed under suspension vide order dated 04.09.1988. FIR
No.218 dated 30.11.1988 was lodged under Sections 409/380 IPC for
loss of the official files and after investigation, the case was consigned
as 'Untraced'. Charge-sheet dated 04.12.1989 was served upon him on
account of not handing over the file of M/s Punjab Cement Store. He
submitted his reply, which was found to be unsatisfactory and a
departmental inquiry was ordered. Plaintiff was found guilty of the
charges and on the basis of the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer,
by order dated 27.03.1991, Ex.P13, punishment of stoppage of two
increments with cumulative effect was imposed. He filed a suit for
declaration challenging this order.
3. Upon notice, the defendants filed a written statement
contesting the suit. It was submitted that the inquiry was conducted as
per the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules and the
defendants supported the penal order passed against the plaintiff.
4. Plaintiff filed replication controverting the stand taken by
the defendants/appellants. 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 07.10.1995 decreed the suit. First appeal
preferred by the defendants was dismissed by learned District Judge,
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082357
RSA-2697-1998
Jalandhar by judgment dated 03.02.1998, resulting in the institution of
the present appeal.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
6. Both the Courts below have concurrently found that as a
copy of the inquiry report was not furnished to the plaintiff -
respondent, it has resulted in the breach of principles of natural justice.
During the course of arguments before this Court, the State counsel
could not point out to any document or evidence on the record to make
submissions to the contrary. The legal position is well settled. In Union
of India and others Versus Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588,
Supreme Court has held that whenever an Inquiry Officer furnishes a
report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of an inquiry
holding the delinquent guilty of the charges, the delinquent is entitled to
a copy of such report so that he may make a representation against it, if
he so desires. Non-furnishing of the report would result in the violation
of the principles of natural justice denying an opportunity to the
delinquent official to rebut the material on the basis of which the
findings have been recorded against him by the Inquiry Officer.
7. Furthermore, an examination of the penal order, Ex.P13,
shows that the Punishing Authority has passed the penal order taking
into account the loss of five official files including that of M/s Punjab
Cement Store. This order of punishment has been passed ignoring the
fact that the charge-sheet against the plaintiff and the inquiry held
against him was for the loss of one official file. This Court is, therefore,
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082357
RSA-2697-1998
of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgments
passed by the Courts below, which are affirmed.
7. Finding no merit in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed with
no order as to costs.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
03.07.2024 JUDGE
Brij
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
