Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab vs Ajit Singh on 7 May, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063116
RSA-2447-1996 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(223)
RSA-2447-1996
Date of decision:- 07.05.2024
The State of Punjab and another ... Appellants
Versus
Ajit Singh ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab
for the appellants.
Respondent was proceeded against ex-parte by this Court vide
order dated 06.03.1997.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Defendants are in second appeal before this Court challenging the
concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below.
2. Pleaded case of the plaintiff-respondent, who was working as a
Driver with the Punjab Roadways, is that by order dated 30.06.1989,
punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and
forfeiture of balance salary for the suspension period, has been imposed in
violation of the principles of natural justice and the Punjab Civil Services
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (for short "the Rules").
3. Upon notice, appellants-defendants have filed a written statement
taking various preliminary objections. A stand has been taken by them that
plaintiff-respondent was negligently driving a bus, which met with an
accident and he caused loss to the Government. Plaintiff was proceeded
against departmentally and on the basis of the findings recorded in the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063116
RSA-2447-1996 -2-
enquiry, penal order was passed. Plaintiff did not file any replication. Issues
were framed and after the parties led evidence, the Trial Court by judgment
dated 13.12.1993 decreed the suit and held that the punishment order is
illegal. Plaintiff was found entitled to all the service benefits. Defendants
remained unsuccessful in the first appeal, which was dismissed by learned
Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide judgment dated 02.03.1996,
resulting in the institution of the present appeal.
4. I have heard the State counsel and considered his submissions,
besides examining the record with his able assistance.
5. A perusal of the punishment order dated 30.06.1989 shows that
two different punishments have been imposed on the plaintiff-respondent.
On the one hand, two increments have been stopped with cumulative effect
on the basis of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and on the other
hand, salary, beyond subsistence allowance, has been withheld. Record
shows that no show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff-respondent for
withholding of his salary. In the absence of a show cause notice, salary due
to the plaintiff-respondent could not be withheld. Still further, it has been
established that there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice,
in as much as the plaintiff-respondent has not been given sufficient time to
prepare his defence. He has not been afforded with an opportunity to take
the assistance of his colleague.
6. The enquiry findings are also not sustainable. The witnesses
produced by the appellants in their evidence in the enquiry proceedings have
stated that the accident occurred as a stray dog came in front of the bus and
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:063116
RSA-2447-1996 -3-
in order to avoid hitting him, plaintiff-respondent tried to bring the bus to a
halt, but it turned turtle. There was no material before the enquiry officer to
come to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent was rash and negligent
in driving. Furthermore, no criminal case was registered against him. A
cumulative effect of all these established facts shows that the punishment
order has been rightly set aside by both the Court below and the impugned
judgments and decrees deserve to be upheld.
7. Finding no merit in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed with no
order as to costs. Impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the
Courts are affirmed.
07.05.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
Kamal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
