Punjab-Haryana High Court
P.R.T.C. Etc vs Pal Singh on 4 July, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082646
RSA-2522-1997
-1-
222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2522-1997
Date of decision:-04.07.2024
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation and others
...Appellants
Versus
Pal Singh
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present : Mr.Anupam Singla, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr.Vardaan Seth, Advocate
for the respondent.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
1. Defendants - appellants are in second appeal before this
Court challenging the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts
below.
2. Pleaded case of the plaintiff - respondent, who was posted
as a driver, is that by punishment order dated 14.07.1992, one annual
grade increment was stopped with cumulative effect besides withholding
the payment of any amount over and above the subsistence allowance.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082646
RSA-2522-1997
He has pleaded that neither any charge-sheet was issued nor an inquiry
was conducted before passing the penal order. He filed a suit for
declaration to the effect that the order is illegal, null and void.
3. Upon notice, the defendants filed a written statement
contesting the suit inter alia, averring that the impugned order was
passed on the basis of the admission made by the plaintiff. 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 23.08.1996
decreed the suit. First appeal preferred by the defendants was dismissed
by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda by judgment dated
03.04.1997, resulting in the institution of the present appeal.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
5. Both the Courts below had interpreted Clause 20 of Pepsu
Road Transport Corporation (Conditions of Appointment and Service
Regulation), 1981 and have come to the conclusion that two
punishments have been imposed on the plaintiff - respondent by the
penal order, which are bad in law as it amounts to double jeopardy.
However, findings recorded by the Courts below are contrary to the
position of law as settled by the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and
others Versus Surjit Singh Conductor, (1996) 8 SCC 350. While
interpreting the same provision, Apex Court has observed as under:
"3. The respondent was a conductor. A charge-sheet was
issued imputing misconduct in not issuing the tickets. The Enquiry
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082646
RSA-2522-1997
Officer, though had not recorded finding of proof of misconduct,
the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the Enquiry
Officer's report and has given reasons in support of the
disagreement, recorded a finding as to how the charges have been
proved by giving opportunity to the respondent to show why the
punishment of stoppage of increments and also withholding
payments of arrears of salary as punishment. The respondent has
submitted his explanation. On consideration thereof, the
disciplinary authority imposed stoppage of three annual
increments with cumulative effect and also with-held payment of
arrears of salary for the suspension period. The trial Court
dismissed the suit. On appeal, it was reversed and the suit was
decreed. In S.A. No. 208 of 93 dated November 25, 1993, the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana confirmed the appellate decree.
4. The appellate decree envisages confirmation of stoppage of
three increments with cumulative effect but interfered with the
order of withholding payment of arrears of salary as a measure of
punishment. The appellate Court held that the disciplinary
Authority had no power to impose the said punishment.
5. We have heard counsel on both sides. It is an admitted
position that the charges have been proved. Once the charges
have been proved, it is settled law that the disciplinary authority
is empowered to impose appropriate punishment. The rule
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082646
RSA-2522-1997
indicates withholding of payment of arrears of salary as one of
the modes of punishment. Under these circumstances, the
disciplinary Authority had rightly exercised its power. The civil
Court had no jurisdiction to substitute the punishment imposed by
the disciplinary authority. The civil Court is not a court of appeal
in civil suits."
6. The judgment of the Supreme Court has been followed by a
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation
Versus Gopal Krishan, 1998 (3) S.C.T. 88.
7. In view of the above settled position, the finding recorded
by the Courts below cannot be sustained. Judgments and decrees passed
by the Courts below are reversed. Suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed
throughout with no order as to costs.
8. Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. However,
considering the time lag and that plaintiff - respondent must have retired
from service, appellants are restrained from effecting any recovery from
him.
9. Pending application, if any, is disposed of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
04.07.2024 JUDGE
Brij
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
