[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pepsu Road Transport Corp vs Narinderjit Singh on 15 December, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
RSA-651-2006 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-651-2006 (O&M)
Reserved on: 15.10.2025
Date of decision: 15.12.2025
Uploaded on: . .2025
Pepsu Road Transport Corp. ..Appellant
Vs.
Narinderjit Singh ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. S.P. Garg, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate
for the respondent.
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The challenge in the present regular second appeal is to
judgment and decree dated 19.10.2005 passed by Additional District Judge,
Patiala, whereby, appeal filed by the respondent against judgment and decree
dated 05.05.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Patiala was partly
allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent was working as driver
under appellant. He was chargesheeted by General Manager, PEPSU Road
Transport Corporation, Patiala vide chargesheet dated 07.06.2000. He filed
reply to the same. Thereafter, inquiry officer was appointed who found
respondent guilty and appellant passed order dated 15.01.2001. The
respondent preferred appeal before Managing Director, PEPSU Road
Transport Corporation, Patiala-II which was also dismissed on 03.11.2003
vide order No.1199 dated 04.11.2003. He filed civil suit challenging order
1 of 5
RSA-651-2006 (O&M)
dated 15.01.2001 and 03.11.2003 which was dismissed by Civil Jude (Jr.
Division), Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 05.05.2005. He filed
appeal against same which was partly accepted. Hence, the present regular
second appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that punishing
authority had rightly exercised his power while imposing punishment under
Regulation 20 of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation (conditions of
appointment and service Regulations) 1981. He further contends that learned
First Appellate Court has wrongly partly allowed the appeal filed by the
respondent and reversed the well-reasoned finding of learned Civil Judge (Jr.
Division), Patiala. He, therefore, prays that the present regular second appeal
be allowed.
4. He relies on judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court titled
as State of Punjab Vs. Surjit Singh Conductor, Law Finder Doc
Id #21754 in support of his contentions.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that
punishment of withholding of his suspension allowance over and above what
had already been paid during suspension period was not part of show cause
notice, therefore, the same could not be granted. He, therefore, prays that the
present regular second appeal be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case with their able assistance.
7. A perusal of the record shows that vide order dated 15.01.2001,
one Annual Grade increment with cumulative effect of the respondent was
stopped. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed vide order dated
2 of 5
RSA-651-2006 (O&M)
03.11.2003 by Additional Managing Director, P.R.T.C..
8. The charges against the respondent were that on 27.05.2000 he
halted the bus at Jalandhar while going from Patiala to Katra with the plea of
brake failure, which on inspection was found to be in order and as such he
caused loss of Rs.6,714/- to P.R.T.C.
9. Respondent has admitted his guilt before inquiry officer and
gave in writing that he pleaded admission of guilt in respect of the
allegations of charges leveled in chargesheet dated 07.06.2000 and the
allegations leveled in chargesheet are true. Further, respondent in letter dated
28.09.2000 stated that he will accept the decision of G.M. in respect of
punishment and do not want that any enquiry be conducted in respect of the
allegations. He further submitted another letter in which he gave the
statement that the statement given before the inquiry officer is without any
pressure and he would not challenge the orders of punishing authority.
10. A perusal of the record shows that it is admitted fact of the
respondent that he received chargesheet and filed reply to the same. And
opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded to him before passing the
order of punishment. There is nothing on record to show that before
punishing, principles of natural justice were not followed rather respondent
was afforded every opportunity including personal hearing before passing
the order of punishment.
11. The civil suit filed by the respondent was dismissed vide
judgment and decree dated 05.05.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division),
Patiala and the appeal filed against the same was partly accepted by
Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated
3 of 5
RSA-651-2006 (O&M)
19.10.2005 on the ground that punishment of stoppage of salary over and
above what has already been paid during the suspension period could not be
imposed since the same was not proposed in show cause notice.
12. The decision given by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala
is against Regulation 20 of PRTC (conditions of payment and service)
Regulation 1981 which specifically provides for punishment of withholding
of wages for the suspension period and separate show cause notice is not
required to be given for the same.
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Surjit Singh
Conductor, Law Finder Doc Id #21754 held that disciplinary authority is
empowered to impose appropriate punishment. The Rule indicates
withholding of payments of arrears of salary as one of the modes of
punishment and the disciplinary authority has power to impose such
punishment. In the present case, penalty of withholding of wages for
suspension period is provided under Rule 20 (V) of PRTC (conditions of
payment and service) Regulation 1981, therefore, separate show cause notice
was not required to be issued for the same since it is one of the penalties
provided under Rule 20 of PRTC (conditions of payment and service)
Regulation 1981.
14. In view of the above, judgment and decree dated 19.10.2005
passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala is set aside. Judgment and
decree dated 05.05.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Patiala is
upheld.
4 of 5
RSA-651-2006 (O&M)
15. Accordingly, the present regular second appeal is allowed.
16. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
15.12.2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Saahil JUDGE
Whether Speaking : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
