Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pepsu Road Transport Corporati vs Bir Singh on 4 July, 2024

Author: Suvir Sehgal

Bench: Suvir Sehgal

                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:092819




RSA-3805-1999 &
RSA-330-2000                               -1-


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

227-2 cases

1.                                                RSA-3805-1999
                                                  Date of decision:04.07.2024

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and another                   ...Appellants

                            Versus

Bir Singh (since deceased) through LRs and another             ...Respondents


2.                                                RSA-330-2000


Bir Singh (deceased) son of Phagan Singh now represented through his LRs
                                                             ...Appellant

                            Versus

Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and others                        ...Respondents



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

Present:      Mr. Anil Sharma, Advocate
              for the appellant in RSA-3805-1999 and
              for the respondent in RSA-330-2000.

              Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate
              for the appellant in RSA-330-2000 and
              for respondent No.1 in RSA-3805-1999.

                     ****


SUVIR SEHGAL, J.

1. This order shall dispose of both the above-noted appeals as they

arise out of the same civil suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, factual position is being taken

from RSA-3805-1999.

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:092819

RSA-3805-1999 &

3. Defendants-appellants are in second appeal assailing the

judgment and decree dated 02.06.1999 passed by the learned Additional

District Judge, Patiala.

4. Pleaded case of plaintiff-respondent No.1 is that he was

appointed as a driver with the defendants in the year 1964. He underwent an

eye surgery and could not attend duty for about 20 days. When he

approached the defendants for re-joining, he was not permitted to do so. He

was charge-sheeted on three counts, firstly on account of absence from duty

from 13.06.1990 onwards; secondly, for not taking interest in the services of

the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (for short "Corporation") and thirdly

for acts subversive of office discipline. After he submitted reply to the show

cause notice, an Inquiry Officer was appointed and vide his report dated

19.12.1990, found him guilty of the charges. Vide order dated 22.07.1991,

Ex.P-3, plaintiff was dismissed from service. He filed an appeal, which was

rejected on 22.01.1992, Ex.D-4. Challenging both the orders, he filed a civil

suit for declaration to the effect that they are illegal, null and void and

sought consequential relief.

5. Upon notice, suit was contested by the defendants by

submitting that there were many complaints against the plaintiff regarding

his work and conduct. He had absented himself from duty from 13.06.1990

without getting the leave sanctioned and never approached the authorities for

re-joining. After the enquiry report was received, two notices were issued to

him for personal hearing, but he did not appear. In a nutshell, the stand taken

by the defendants was that due opportunity was given to the plaintiff and the

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:092819

RSA-3805-1999 &

procedure prescribed under the service regulations was followed before

passing the orders under challenge.

6. Plaintiff filed a replication re-asserting his stand. Issues were

framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, who led evidence in

support of their case. After hearing them, Trial Court by judgment and

decree dated 04.04.1995, dismissed the suit. Plaintiff filed a first appeal,

which found favour with the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, and

by the impugned judgment, both the orders dated 22.07.1991, Ex.P-3, and

22.01.1992, Ex.D-4, were held to be illegal and the plaintiff was found

entitled to the consequential service benefits. However, prayer for grant of

interest was specifically declined. Defendants are before this Court in the

above background and the plaintiff has filed the connected appeal claiming

interest.

7. Mr. Anil Sharma, counsel for the defendant-appellant has

argued that the First Appellate Court has erred in recording the finding that

the Depot Manager was not competent to pass orders of removal of the

respondent from service as the powers of the General Manager had been

delegated to the Depot Manager. On the other hand, Mr. Jai Bhagwan,

counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has supported the judgment passed by

the Lower Appellate Court and submits that he is entitled to interest on the

arrears of salary, which were due to him.

8. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their

respective submissions and examined the record with their able assistance.

9. The common case of the parties is that the services of the

plaintiff-respondent were governed by the Pepsu Road Transport

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:092819

RSA-3805-1999 &

Corporation (Conditions of Appointment and Service Regulations), 1981,

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations') and he was appointed as a

driver vide appointment letter dated 16.12.1964, Ex.P-1, issued by the

General Manager of the Corporation. Rule 21 of the Regulations provides

that Appendix-B specifies the authority, who is competent to impose the

penalties. The relevant extract of Appendix-B, is reproduced hereunder:-

"Appendix - B

Sr. Designation of Post Authority Nature of Authority Appellate No. Competent penalty to impose Authority to make penalty appointment 1 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

2 XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX

3 Machinist, Mechanic, General (a) to (f) General Additional Fitter, Tyreman Manager Manager Managing Borer, Welder, Director Blacksmith, Asst.

       Tyreman, Carpenter,                          (g)        Additional
       Upholster,                                              Managing Managing
       Electrician, Painter,                                   Director   Director
       R. Repairer, Batter
       Attendant,      Turner,
       Helper, Vulcaniser,
       Asstt. Fitter, Cleaner,
       Sweeper, Chowkidar,
       Store     Boy,    Gate
       Keeper,          Daftri,
       Record Lifter, Peon,
       Ward         Attendant,
       Gunman,
       Mali/Driver,       Staff
       Car Driver, Sub-
       Inspector,        Yard
       Master, Conductor in
       depots.
4       XXX                     XXX               XXX          XXX          XXX




                                   4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:092819

RSA-3805-1999 &

10. From the above reproduction of the relevant extract, it is

evident that the authority competent to make the appointment to the post of

driver is the General Manager and he has been specified as the authority,

who is competent to impose the penalty in Column 3 above.

11. Coming to the facts of the present case, a perusal of the

dismissal order dated 22.07.1991, Ex.P3, shows that it has been passed by

the Depot Manager. It cannot be disputed that the Depot Manager was

subordinate to the General Manager, who was the appointing as well as the

authority competent to impose penalty. Although, it has been argued by the

appellant that the Depot Manager is competent to pass the dismissal order,

however, no material could be referred to, during the course of the

arguments to fortify this submission. As the authority who passed the

punishment order, Ex.P-3, was not the authority competent to pass the

dismissal order, the Lower Appellate Court is right in setting aside the

dismissal order as well as the consequential order. This is no illegality in the

finding recorded by the First Appellate Court, which deserves to be upheld.

12. At this stage, counsel for the appellant has requested that liberty

be granted to the appellants to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

This request deserves to be considered and rejected. Civil suit was filed by

the plaintiff-respondent in 1992 and the litigation has remained pending for

the last more than three decades. Plaintiff has unfortunately expired during

the pendency of this appeal on 30.09.2009 and his legal representatives have

been brought on the record. It is high time that the litigation is given a

quietus and is brought to an end.

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:092819

RSA-3805-1999 &

13. Insofar as the submission of the counsel for the plaintiff is

concerned, suffice is to say that the Lower Appellate Court has specifically

declined the grant of interest on the arrears of salary. This Court is of the

view that the discretion has been properly exercised by the Lower Appellate

Court and does not call for any interference.