Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalip Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 15 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037950
1
RSA-697 of 1994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-697 of 1994
Reserved on: 04.03.2024
Pronounced on: 15.03.2024
Dalip Singh
......Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: - Ms. Anamika Sheoran, Advocate, and
Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 28.08.1993 passed by the Court of learned
Additional District Judge, Faridkot, whereby appeal filed by the
respondent-State has been accepted and suit filed by the plaintiff-
appellant stands dismissed.
2. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made
as per their status in the civil suit. Briefly stated, Plaintiff filed a suit
for declaration to the effect that the order dated 01.09.1987, passed by
the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga, by virtue of which his
three annual increments with cumulative effect were stopped was
illegal, ultra vires, wrong, null and void. It was submitted in the plaint
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037950
RSA-697 of 1994
that plaintiff is employed as a conductor in the Department of
Transport, Punjab Roadways, Moga and he is a civil servant and as
such he is entitled to protection under Punjab Civil Services
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1970 and Article 311 of the
Constitution of India. The plaintiff was placed under suspension by the
General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga and a charge-sheet was
served upon him. The plaintiff filed reply to the charge-sheet, in which
he denied all the allegations levelled against him. It was pleaded that
the charge sheet was vague, indefinite and did not contain sufficient
material as required under the law and rules and it presupposed the
guilt of the plaintiff without any formal proof. The department has not
given the entire list of witnesses, which were to be examined before the
Enquiry Officer, alongwith the charge sheet and as such there is
violation of Rule 8 Sub clause 4 of P.C.S. (P&A) Rules, 1970. It was
further stated that the plaintiff was not given an opportunity to have the
assistance of a co-worker as defence helper, as he was not conversant
with the procedure of enquiry. The enquiry officer was neither a
punishing authority nor he was delegated with powers to hold the
enquiry and the enquiry was without jurisdiction. The Enquiry Officer
has not conducted the enquiry in accordance with the PCS (P&A)
Rules, 1970. The Enquiry Officer has not conducted the enquiry
himself. It was further stated that the copy of complaint on the basis of
which the plaintiff was charge-sheeted was not supplied to the plaintiff
at any stage and this caused prejudice to the plaintiff. That no interim
order as required under Rule 8 Sub-clause 11 of the PCS (P&A) Rules,
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037950
RSA-697 of 1994
1970, was passed by the Enquiry Officer and non-passing of this order,
vitiates the entire enquiry proceedings as the valuable rights of the
delinquent officia1 for the inspection of documents and summoning of
documents, if any, for the purposes of effective cross-examination of
prosecution witnesses had been taken away. It was further submitted
that show cause notice was not served upon the plaintiff before passing
the impugned order nor the copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer
was supplied to the plaintiff and without the service of show cause
notice and the copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the
increments of the plaintiff could not be stopped with cumulative effect
and as such the order is illegal and against rules. The plaintiff sent a
notice under section 80 CPC to the defendant, under registered/A.D.
cover which was duly served, but to no effect.
3. Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written
statement raising preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction, the
suit is time barred and not maintainable in the present form. It was
stated on merit that the charge sheet is correct, legal, specific and
detailed and it contained sufficient material as per rules. The charge
sheet was drawn according to rules and list of witnesses and documents
were supplied to the plaintiff alongwith the charge sheet. The plaintiff
has refused the offer of the Enquiry Officer regarding assistance of co-
worker in the enquiry proceedings and the Enquiry Officer was duly
appointed to conduct the enquiry against the plaintiff and the enquiry
was conducted as per rules and principles of natural justice. The
Enquiry Officer himself conducted the enquiry and the copies of all
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037950
RSA-697 of 1994
relevant documents were supplied to the plaintiff. It was further
submitted that the Enquiry Officer has passed all the necessary orders
under the rules and plaintiff was given proper opportunity to inspect
and summon the documents and witnesses and he was given proper
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to produce his defence.
Show-cause notice was served on the plaintiff and a copy of the
findings of the Enquiry Officer was supplied to the plaintiff alongwith
show-cause notice before passing the final order. No proper notice
under Section 80 CPC has been served before filing the suit. All other
allegations made in plaint were denied by the defendant as incorrect.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by the trial Court:-
"1. Whether the order dated 1.9.1987 passed by the
General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga is
illegal, ultravires, wrong, wanton, crypric etc.? OPP
2. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain
and try this suit? OPD
3. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present
form? OPD
5. Relief."
5. Parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in
support of their respective contentions.
6. After hearing arguments and appreciating evidence on
record, trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and
decree dated 08.02.1993.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037950
RSA-697 of 1994
7. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial
Court, defendant-State preferred an appeal before the lower appellate
Court, which has been allowed vide judgment and decree dated
28.08.1993.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the lower
appellate Court has erred in law in reversing the well-reasoned
judgment of the trial Court. She further contended that appellant was
not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself and the enquiry is
in violation of the principles of natural justice. She further contended
that necessary documents were not supplied to the appellant and there
are discrepancies in the statements of the material witnesses. She
further submitted that during enquiry, statements of passengers were
not recorded. She further contended that there is violation of Rule 8(4)
of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970.
She further contended that judgment and decree of the lower appellate
Court are based on surmises and conjectures and the same are liable to
be set aside.
9. On the other hand, learned State counsel submitted that
judgment of the lower appellate Court is perfectly valid and legal,
therefore, same does not require any interference by this Court and
present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
11. Perusal of the record shows that appellant appeared before
the enquiry officer on 08.09.1986 and stated that he had received the
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037950
RSA-697 of 1994
documents connected with the charge-sheet. The enquiry officer
offered the assistance of a co-worker to the appellant which was
refused by him. The lower appellate Court has rightly recorded that
once the plaintiff had himself admitted that he had received all the
documents, there was no occasion to give five days for inspection as
the documents were already provided to him. Thus, there is no
violation of Rule 8(4) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and
Appeal) Rules, 1970. It is well settled that Courts ought to refrain
from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental
inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently
perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on
no evidence.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out
any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree of the
lower appellate Court.
13. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law
has been raised or arises for consideration in the present appeal. No
other point has been urged.
14. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed.
15. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
15.03.2024 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037950
6 of 6
