State Of Punjab vs Joginder Singh Bedi
2024 Latest Caselaw 4689 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

State Of Punjab vs Joginder Singh Bedi on 1 March, 2024

Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi

                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029609




                                          Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:029609

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT 204
204


                                                 RSA-2312-1993 (O&M)
                                                 Decided on :01.03.2024

STATE OF PUNJAB                                              . . .APPELLANT


                                        Versus

JOGINDER SINGH BEDI                                       . . . RESPONDENT


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI


PRESENT: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, DAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with
            Ms. Sonia, Advocate for the respondent.

            ****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. In the present regular second appeal, the challenge is to the

judgment and decree dated 26.08.1992 passed by the lower Appellate Court,

by which, the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed and a

direction was given to allow the respondent-plaintiff to cross the efficiency

bar for the payment of higher pay-scale.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the order stopping

of the crossing of the efficiency bar was passed at Chandigarh whereas,

same was conveyed to the respondent-plaintiff at Moga and the Civil Suit

was filed at Jalandhar.

3. It may be noticed that the lower Appellate Court has already

considered the said argument and passed appropriate order. Once, it is a

conceded fact that the respondent-plaintiff was posted at Jalandhar at the

relevant time and there is regional office of the respondent-plaintiff in

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029609

RSA-2312-1993 (O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:029609 Jalandhar also, the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court qua the

jurisdiction with the Courts at Jalandhar needs no interference.

4. The another argument which has been raised by the learned

counsel for the appellant is that it was only due to the adverse remarks in

annual confidential report that the petitioner was not allowed to cross the

efficiency bar whereas, the Lower Appellate Court has come to the

conclusion that as the original record of the dispatch register qua the serving

of the letter informing the said adverse remarks in the Annual Confidential

Report to the respondent-plaintiff has not been produced, the photocopy of

the dispatch register produced could not have been taken into account by the

trial Court so as to uphold the impugned order dated 24.02.1988.

5. Once, the original record of the dispatch register was not

produced, rather a photocopy was produced as an evidence, the lower

Appellate Court has rightly denied the benefit of the photocopy of the

dispatched register in favour of the appellants so as to claim that the

respondent-plaintiff was served with the adverse remarks in his Annual

Confidential Report.

6. No other arguments are being raised on behalf of the appellant.

7. Even otherwise, it may be noticed that the present regular

second appeal was filed in the year 1993 and 33 years have elapsed since

then and there is no interim order the order of the lower Appellate Court

must have been executed and the respondent-plaintiff must have retired from

service by now.

8. Keeping in view the facts mentioned here-in-before, no

perversity could be pointed out in the findings of the Lower Appellate Court,

hence, no ground is made out for interference in the Regular Second

Appeal.

                                 2 of 3

                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029609




       RSA-2312-1993         (O&M)          3    2024:PHHC:029609
9.             Dismissed.

10. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

01.03.2024                                      (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
Riya                                                    JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:    Yes/No
Whether Reportable:          Yes/No




                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:029609

                                   3 of 3