Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Civil Supplies vs Dev Raj Kalsi Etc on 21 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042189
1
RSA-1682 of 1992
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-1682 of 1992
Reserved on: 14.02.2024
Pronounced on: 21.03.2024
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Chandigarh
......Appellant
Versus
Shri Dev Raj Kalsi and another
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Argued by: - Ms. Aashna Gill, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate,
for respondent No.1.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. This regular second appeal is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 07.02.1992, passed by Sub Judge IInd
Class, Jalandhar, whereby suit for declaration filed by the respondent-
plaintiff, has been decreed, as well as against the judgment and decree
dated 15.05.1992, passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar,
whereby appeal filed by the appellant-defendant has been dismissed.
2. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made
as per their status in the civil suit. The facts relevant for disposal of this
regular second appeal are that the plaintiff-Dev Raj Kalsi instituted a
suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 29.04.1985, passed
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042189
RSA-1682 of 1992
by the Managing Director, PUNSUP, terminating the services of the
plaintiff and thereafter, rejecting his appeal by the Appellate Authority,
vide order dated 17.09.1986, are illegal, void and against the principles
of natural justice. It is pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff joined as
Sub Inspector in the PUNSUP, in the year 1976 and since then, he
served in Ferozepur District till his services were terminated on
29.04.1985, despite the fact that the plaintiff had performed his duties
with due diligence. It is further pleaded that on the basis of false
allegations, after preliminary inquiry conducted into the matter by Sh.
Inder Pal Singh, Assistant Manager, and Darshan Singh Mann,
Assistant Manager, Flying Squad, the Managing Director ordered
departmental inquiry against the plaintiff. As a result thereof, Sh.
B.S.Basur was appointed as inquiry officer, who conducted the inquiry
against the provisions of law. The aforesaid inquiry was vitiated on the
ground alone, for the reason that the plaintiff could not be held guilty
on the basis of allegations, which did not relate to his duties as Sub
Inspector.
3. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the allegations of
temporary embezzlements levelled against the plaintiff, were baseless,
because he had not personally made use of any amount. Furthermore,
the plaintiff was denied the opportunity to defend his case and two
witnesses, namely, Yadvinder Singh and Satwant Singh to whom the
plaintiff wanted to get examined in his defence, were never summoned
by the Inquiry Officer. It is also pleaded that no sufficient and
justifiable reasons were given by the Inquiry Officer while concluding
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042189
RSA-1682 of 1992
the reports to arrive at a particular decision. It is further pleaded that
the plaintiff had never ever been provided an opportunity of hearing, as
envisaged under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. It is also pleaded
that the punishing authority had recorded in his order that he had also
considered comments of the District Manager, but it has not been made
clear that as to what prompted him to get comments of the District
Manager, as no copy of the comments was ever given to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has also got issued notice under Section 80 CPC served
upon the defendants, but no reply to the same had been given. Hence,
this suit.
4. Upon issuance of notice, the defendants appeared through
counsel and filed the written statement controverting all the averments
made in the plaint by taking preliminary objections on the grounds of
jurisdiction; non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties. On merits, the
relevant averments made in the plaint were denied. It is pleaded that
upon receipt of the preliminary inquiry report, a charge-sheet was
served upon the plaintiff, alongwith allegations of charges, list of
witnesses. The allegations levelled against the plaintiff qua
embezzlement of stock at PUNSUP Centre, Zira, were inquired into
by Sh. B.S.Basur, the then Manager, Commercial and Distribution, in
accordance with the provisions of law, who had found the plaintiff
guilty in respect of the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, a
show-cause notice was served upon the plaintiff and after perusing the
reply filed by him, the order terminating the services o the plaintiff was
passed, vide order dated 29.04.1985. The plaintiff being Incharge of
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042189
RSA-1682 of 1992
Distribution of goods at the PUNSUP Centre, as made vide DM order
dated 20.07.1981, was responsible for the sale of cement, sugar and
pulses. It is further pleaded that the Inquiry Officer summoned all the
witnesses in defence, which had been mentioned by the plaintiff in the
list. As such, the plaintiff had been given adequate opportunity of
hearing to defend himself in the inquiry. The inquiry report as well as
the plea taken by the plaintiff in his defence, were duly considered and
thereafter, the order had been passed by the punishing authority. As
such, the orders dated 29.04.1985 and 17.09.1986 have rightly been
passed by the authorities. During inquiry, the plaintiff had been
afforded an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.
5. Replication was filed by the plaintiff wherein he
controverted the averments made in the written statement and reiterated
those of the plaint.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court
framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the impugned order dated 29.04.1985
passed by the Managing Director, PUNSUP, is
illegal, void etc. etc., as alleged in the plaint?
OPP
2. Whether civil court at Jalandhar has no territorial
jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit? OPD
3. Whether suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder
of parties? OPD
4. Whether suit is not properly filed as alleged? OPD
5. Relief.
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042189
RSA-1682 of 1992
7. The parties led their respective evidence. The Court of
first instance, after appreciating evidence on record, decreed the suit
filed by the plaintiff.
8. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of
the trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal before the lower
appellate Court, which has been dismissed vide judgment and decree
dated 15.05.1992.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the
judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are against law
and the evidence on record. She further contended that both the courts
below have not appreciated the evidence in right perspective. In fact,
the orders dated 29.04.1985 and 17.09.1986 have been passed after
affording due opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. Even personal
hearing had been given to plaintiff before the aforesaid orders. She
further contended that after applying its mind, the appellate authority
had dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff, and where the disciplinary
authority agrees with the findings of the inquiry officer, the disciplinary
authority is not bound to record reasons in every case.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended
that the respondent was serving at Zira, District Ferozepur, when his
services had been terminated, therefore, the Civil Court at Zira had got
the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit. Learned counsel
for the appellant further submitted that copy of enquiry report was
supplied to the plaintiff and the finding recorded by the appellate Court
is wrong, as there was no mention in the plaint filed by the plaintiff to
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042189
RSA-1682 of 1992
this effect and no evidence was even led by either party. She further
submitted that the plea taken with regard to non-summoning of
witnesses during the enquiry proceedings does not carry much weight
as the same is in exclusion to the pleadings and not causing prejudice to
the plaintiff. In support of her contention that the Civil Court,
Jalandhar, has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, she has relied upon
the judgments rendered in Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs.
Utpal Kumar Basu and others (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 711,
Alchemist Ltd. and another Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and others
(2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases 335, National Textile Corpn. Ltd.
And others Vs. Haribox Swalram and others (2004) 9 Supreme
Court Cases 786, Manish Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India and
others (2020) 143 ALR 127, Prem Kumar Handa Vs. National
Housing Bank and another 2010 (1) I.L.R, Punjab and Haryana,
745, N.K.Sharma Vs. M.D., the Gurgaon Central Cooperative Bank
Ltd. And others 2009 SCC Online P & H 8749, Harvinder Singh Vs.
Food Corporation of India & Ors. (2003) I.L.R P & H 689, Gurdial
Singh Vs. Food Corporation of India and Ors. (2006) 2 I.L.R. P & H
59. She has also submitted that the competent authority has agreed
with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and thus the orders cannot be
termed to be non-speaking as has been held by the Courts below. She
has placed reliance upon the judgments in Tara Chand Khatri Vs.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1977) 1 Supreme Court Cases 472
and State of Haryana and others Vs. Shri Ram Chander 1977(1)
I.L.R. Punjab and Haryana 24.
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042189
RSA-1682 of 1992
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
contended that both the courts below have rightly appreciated the
evidence in right perspective and the judgments and decrees passed by
the courts below are liable to be upheld. He further submitted that the
department had examined three more witnesses whose names did not
find mention in the list submitted by the department. The examination
of such witnesses had caused a prejudice to the plaintiff in his defence.
The witnesses sought to be produced in defence by the plaintiff, had not
been summoned by the Inquiry Officer, which amounts to denial of
opportunity to adduce defence evidence. As such, provisions of Rule 8
of Punishment and Appeal Rules had been violated by the Inquiry
Officer. Particularly the enquiry officer has himself admitted that the
list of witnesses was furnished by the employee but he had not made
any efforts to summon the witnesses as detailed in the list and,
therefore, had been deprived from bringing on record the best evidence
available to him in his defence and further it is vitiated by violation of
principles of natural justice. Even, the copy of complaint made by
Chowkidar; preliminary report submitted by the Flying Squad and the
comments of D.M. PUNSUP, Ferozepur, had not been furnished to the
plaintiff since it is mandatory in terms of Rule 11 of the Punishment
and Appeal Rules, causing prejudice to the employee. Furthermore, no
opportunity of inspecting the documents had been shown on the record,
having been given to the plaintiff. He further submitted that the factual
and procedural pleas raised by the plaintiff in his reply to the show
cause notice, had not been considered by the competent authority
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042189
RSA-1682 of 1992
before passing the impugned order. He further submitted that the
provisions of Rule 19(2) of Punishment and Appeal Rules had not been
complied with by the Appellate Authority, while rejecting the appeal
and, therefore, the orders dated 29.04.1985 and 17.09.1986 are not
reasoned one. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied
upon the judgments in Shiv Datt Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and
others 1962 (1) L.L.J. 570, Union of India and others Vs. Prakash
Kumar Tandon 2009 AIR (Supreme Court) 1375, Chairman,
Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank
Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others 2009(4) SCC 240, Mahesh
Dahiya and others Vs. Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board
through its Secretary, Viduty Bhawan 2012 (5) SCT 377, Jit Singh
Vs. State of Punjab 2002(1) SCT 628, Soma Das (Mallick) Vs. State
of West Bengal and others 2019(1) Cal. H.C.N. 731, Managing
Director ECIL Hyderabad etc. Vs. B. Karunakar Etc., 1994(1) SCT
319 and Gurucharan Singh Vs. Kamla Singh and others 1977 AIR
(Supreme Court) 5.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
13. A perusal of the record would show that while passing the
order dated 29.04.1985, concededly, the competent authority has not
considered several pleas raised by the plaintiff in his defence as
enumerated above. Furthermore, the appellate authority has dismissed
the appeal consisting of 13 pages, by passing the order dated
17.09.1986, which apparently seems to be cryptic and non-speaking.
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042189
RSA-1682 of 1992
Both the courts below have rightly appreciated the fact that the
principles of natural justice have not been followed by the authorities
concerned, while passing the orders dated 29.04.1985 and 17.09.1986.
Both the courts below have rightly appreciated the fact that the inquiry
officer was within his competence to summon the witnesses to whom
the plaintiff wanted to get examined, and he should not have left it to
the plaintiff to summon his own witnesses. Both the courts below have
also rightly arrived at a conclusion that no opportunity was afforded to
the plaintiff to controvert the comments of D.M. PUNSUP, Ferozepur.
14. Indisputably, an employer has inherent power to suitably
punish a delinquent employee. However, the said inherent power is
subjected to certain restrictions so as to protect an employee against
any sort of vindictive or capricious action. As such, the employer is
required to follow certain principles and procedures before awarding
any punishment to the employee. The correct procedure is required to
be followed by the employer.
15. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to go into the point
of jurisdiction as the appeal pertains to the year 1992 and is pending for
more than 31 years particularly when no prejudice has been suffered by
the appellant. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Bikash Bhushan Ghosh and others v. M/s Novartis
India Limited and another, 2007(3) S.C.T. 486 and judgment of this
Court in Arjan Singh v. Surjit Singh and others, 2007(1) R.C.R.(Civil)
522. Undoubtedly, the purpose of jurisdiction of the Courts is to
safeguard honest litigants and to prevent harassment of plaintiffs who
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042189
RSA-1682 of 1992
have commenced actions in good faith before a Court. Keeping in view
the provisions of Section 21 CPC, unless respondent suffered any
prejudice, it could not have questioned the jurisdiction of the Court as
held in the aforesaid judgments.
16. No benefit of the judgment in Tara Chand Khatri and
Shri Ram Chander's case (supra) can be given to the appellant in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as Enquiry Officer was
expected to go deeply into the pleas raised by the respondent and
required to conclude the enquiry with detailed logical reasons after due
application of mind when career of the respondent was at stake. By not
giving a reasoned decision, the principles of natural justice have been
violated. The appellate authority in two line order has also rejected his
appeal without assigning any reason and grounds taken in the detailed
appeal were not even duly considered by the appellate authority before
rejecting it.
17. Concurrent findings have been recorded by both the
Courts below that the principles of natural justice have not been
followed while punishing the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the
appellant has failed to show that the findings recorded by Courts below
are perverse or illegal or based on misreading, non-reading or mis-
appreciation of the material evidence on record.
18. In view of above, no question of law, muchless substantial
question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. No other
point has been urged.
19. Dismissed.
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042189
RSA-1682 of 1992
20. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
21.03.2024 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
11 of 11
