Jaswant Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors.
2026 Latest Caselaw 3472 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jaswant Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 18 April, 2026

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

             RSA-758-2008
                       08 (O&M)                                                             1


                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                        AT CHANDIGARH

                                                       RSA-758
                                                           758-2008 (O&M)


             Jaswant Singh                                                ......Appellant

                                                       vs.


             State of Punjab & ors.                                   .....Respondents

                                                       Date of Reserve: 01.04.2026
                                                       Date of Pronouncement: 18.04.2026
                                                       Uploaded on:
                                                                 on:- 20.04.2026

             Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No
             Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes

             CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.
                            MR JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

             Present:          Mr. Rajiv Atma, Sr. Advocate assisted by
                               Mr. Rajat Khanna, Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh, Mr. Paramjit Singh,
                               Mr. Sumbhav Parmar, Advocates
                               for the appellant.

                               Mr. Animesh Sharma, Addl.A.G. Punjab

                               ****

***

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment

and decree dated 22.09.2007 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge,

Gurdaspur,, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent respondent-State was allowed and

the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge

(Junior Division), Gurdaspur was set aside.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case as per civil suit are that the appellant was

appointed as PCMS in health department on 04/03/1976 on adhoc basis. His

services were regularized on 24/9/1976. Since then he is working diligently. Vide

order dated 28/06/ 2026.04.20 16:11 /06/1999, the services of the appellant were terminated on the basis

RSA-758-2008

of allegation of absence from duty and violating the instructions of the

Government.. The enquiry was ordered to be conducted against him. The appellant

challenged the dismissal order by filing civil suit, which was decreed in his favour,

vide judgment and decree dated 18.05.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.

Divn.), Gurdaspur. The respondent-State respond State filed appeal against the same, which was

accepted, vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 passed by learned Addl.

District Judge, Gurdaspur. Hence the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the

learned Addl. District Judge, Judge Gurdaspur has wrongly accepted the appeal filed by

the respondent-State respondent State without appreciating the evidence (oral as well as

documentary) on record. He further contends that well reasoned judgment and

decree dated 18.05.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurdaspur has

been reversed by learned First Appellate Court. He, therefore, prays that the

present Regular Second Appeal be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel counsel for the respondent respondent-State contends that the

First Appellate Court has rightly accepted the appeal filed by the respondent respondents and

dismissed the civil suit filed by the appellant. He, therefore, prays that the present

Regular Second Appeal be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have

carefully perused the record with their able assistance.

ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD

6. A perusal of the record reveals that admittedly, the appellant was

appointed as PCMS on 04.03.1976.. His services were regularized on 24.09.1976.

Charge sheet dated 14.02.1991 was issued against him for unauthorizedly

GAURAV ARORA remaining absent from duty from 02.12.1989 and not following government

RSA-758-2008

instructions. He filed reply dated 08.03.1991 to the same stating therein that due to

bad health, he applied for leave along with medical certificates of Civil Hospital.

Thereafter, Enquiry officer namely Dr.Manmohan Kaur was appointed, vide order

dated 08.06.1991 (Ex D2). She submitted enquiry report on 07.04.1 07.04.1994, 994, which

was rejected by the Government on 30.07.1995 without any reason. The Enquiry

Report submitted by Dr. Manmohan Kaur dated 07.04.1994 was not accepted and

de novo enquiry was ordered.

7. A perusal of the record further shows that appellant had put in more

than 23 years of service. The appellant appeared in the witness box as PW1 and

stated that he gave reply to charge sheet and his reply was not considered. DW1 in

his cross examination admitted admitted that the appellant replied to charge sheet. A

perusal of the record further shows that appellant in his evidence stated that no list

of witnesses was given to him, which is further affirmed by DW1 in his cross

examination who stated that the name of witnesses were not supplied to the

appellant. DW1 further stated that reply to charge sheet was given by the appellant

which was not considered, since the appellant did not appear before the Enquiry

Officer. DW1 also admitted in his cross examination that appellant applied for

leave which was accompanied by certificates from Doctors showing that his health

did not allow him to join the duty. The cross examination of DW1 W1 further shows

that appellant could not join duty because of medical reasons. A perusal of reply

filed by the appellant also shows the same. Hee applied for leave on medical

grounds but the same was rejected. In his examination in chief, appellant stated

that he applied to enquiry officer for holding enquiry at Gurdaspur because of

health reasons ons but his request was not considered. DW1 in his cross examination

also admitted that the appellant applied for change of venue of Enquiry at

GAURAV ARORA Gurdaspur but his request was not considered without any reasons. There is

RSA-758-2008

nothing to show that there is any complaint com against the appellant or misconduct or

negligence on the part of the appellant during his service period. The whole record

of this case shows that due to medical reasons reasons, appellant could not join duty.

dut

Further in the reply dated 08.03.1991 to show cause notice, the appellant had

specifically stated that because of health reasons, he could not join the duties nor

he could appear before the Medical Board at Gurdaspur and his absence from duty

was beyond his control. He further stated that he was right to join his duties by

ignoring his health also. A perusal of letter dated 14.08.1996 written by Dr.

Manmohan Kaur, Director Health Family Welfare Punjab, Chandigarh cum

Enquiry Officer by Secretary to Punjab Government, Health and Family Welfare

Department, Punjab stating therein regarding reply submitted by the appellant and

his asking for permission to join his duty and her observation that the decision to

this effect is to be taken at the Government level only further proves the conduct

and intention tention of the appellant to be bona fide.

8. A perusal of the impugned order of dismissal dated 07.07.1999

deciding allegations of unauthorisedly remaining absent from duty on 02.12.1989

and non compliance of the directions issued by the Government nowhere referred

to reply filed by the appellant and its consideration with respect to the medical

condition of the appellant as well as his willingness to join the duty. More so,

there is nothing in order of dismissal dated 07.07.1999 regarding the requestt made

by the appellant to conduct the enquiry at Gurdaspur due to his health reasons.

Further, the request made by the appellant was genuine which could be considered

by the respondent since he was working with the respondent for the last 23 year

and due to health reasons, he applied for leave which was also rejected.

9. The reasoning for not joining the enquiry was also due to health

GAURAV ARORA problems and he made request for holding enquiry at Gurdaspur itself which was

RSA-758-2008

not even considered. In order of dismissal dated 07.07.1999 there is no whisper

regarding the same.

same Learned earned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur did not consider and

appreciate the evidence on record, record while holding that it is not the appellant who is

to choose se the venue of enquiry without appreciating the fact of bad health/health

problem of the appellant, which was supported by the medical certificates. The

learned First Appellate Court ignored the fact that it is not the case of the

respondent-State State that the appellant willingly absented himself from duty, rather

the whole record shows that because of medical reasons, he applied for leave,

which was rejected.

rejected And the request to change the venue from Chandigarh to

Gurdaspur for health reasons, was not even considered. Further, the learned First

Appellatee Court ignored the evidence on record which proves bona fide reasons

for remaining absent as well as not joining the enquiry by the appellant.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons recorded

hereinabove, The judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 passed by the learned

Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur, is hereby set aside, and the judgment and decree

dated 18.05.2002 18.05.200 passed by the learned Civil Judge ((Junior Division), Gurdaspur, Gurdaspur

is affirmed and civil suit filed by the appellant is decreed in his favour.

Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is allowed.

11. The date of birth of the appellant is 15.05.1949, as per which he is

almost 77 years of age as on date. He filed civil suit in the year 2000 which was

decided in the year 2002. The appeal filed by the State against the same was

decided in the year 2007.

2007. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present regular second

appeal in the year 2008 and since 2008, he is waiting for the decision in the

present Regular Second Appeal.

Appeal. Meaning thereby, he is waiting for the last 18

years from the date of filing the present appeal and for the last almost 26 years

GAURAV ARORA from the date of filing of civil suit. Therefore, justice demands that he should not

RSA-758-2008

be forced by the respondent-State respondent to filee the execution petition. Since the civil suit

filed by the appellant is decreed in his favour and his dismissal order dated

07.07.1999 is set aside, therefore, the appellant is entitled to retiral benefits. The

respondent-State State is directed to calculate the the pensionary benefits by notionally

fixing his pay as well as consequential benefits benefits.. The amount so calculated shall

carry interest @ 7% per annum. This exercise shall be completed within a period

of three months from the date of passing of the judgment.,

12. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared

13. Pending applications if any also stands disposed of.

                                                                (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
             18.04.2026                                              JUDGE
             Gaurav Arora
                                     Whether speaking/reasoned        : Yes
                                     Whether reportable               : Yes