State of Punjab and Another v. Ganpat Rai

IN T

State of Punjab Ganpat Rai

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

for

Mr

for SUDEEPTI SH

08.09.2000 pass filed by the resp by the learned C BRIEF FACTS

2.

employed as co some allegation withholding of t after the expiry annual increme approached the then General M

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS Da and Another

VERSUS

ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUD r. S.S.Gill, Sr. DAG, Punjab the appellant. r. Puneet Kumar Bansal, Advoca the respondent. -.- HARMA, J (Oral). e present appeal is preferred aga sed by the learned District Judg pondent against the judgment an Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ferozepu S e brief facts of the present c onductor in Punjab Roadways, F ns, vide order dated 20.11.198 three annual increments was imp of period of three years the resp ents withheld vide order date appellants, who in the reply dis Manager, who had passed ord

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-1327-2001 (O&M) ate of Decision : 05.03.2025

....Appellant

....Respondent EEPTI SHARMA ate ainst the judgment and decree da ge, Ferozepur, whereby the app nd decree dated 01.06.1998 pas ur, is allowed. case are that the respondent w Ferozepur Depot. On the basis 85, the punishment of penalty posed on the respondent. Therefo pondent was entitled to the gran ed 20.11.1985. The respond closed that his case was sent to der dated 20.11.1985 for seek

peal s of y of ore, nt of dent

clarification and Singh Gosal, the dated 22.12.199 his due increme of his incremen filed a civil suit were due since increments vide well as interest vide judgment a

3.

01.06.1998, whi and decree dated

4.

Hen SUBMISSION

5.

Lea Appellate Court the fact that onu punishment of respondent and h

6.

Per appeal has right with the appella only stoppage cumulative effec

d accordingly he was told that e then General Manager, who w 94 and after receipt of the reply nts. Thereafter, the respondent nts but he did not receive any re in the year 1997 for the release the year 1985 by taking penal e order dated 20.11.1985 as the on the arrears. The civil suit file and decree dated 01.06.1998. e respondent filed an appeal aga ich was allowed by the District J d 08.09.2000. nce the present appeal by the Sta OF THE LEARNED COUNS arned counsel for the appellan t has wrongly allowed the appe us to prove the wording in the or withholding of three annual in he could not place on record ord r contra, learned counsel for tly been allowed since the order ant itself and as per the service of three increments and the ct'.

his case was sent to Sh. Kuld was posted at Chandigarh, vide le y, the respondent would be gran made many requests for the rele esponse to the same. Therefore, of all the annual increments wh lty of withholding of three ann increments withheld simplicitor ed by the respondent was dismis ainst the judgment and decree da Judge, Ferozepur, vide its judgm ate of Punjab. EL FOR THE PARTIES nt contends that the learned F al filed by the respondent ignor rder dated 20.11.1985, whereby ncrements was passed, was on der dated 20.11.1985. the respondent contends that dated 20.11.1985 was not availa e record punishment awarded w ere was nothing regarding 'w

deep etter nted ease , he hich nual r as ment First ring able

7.

I h record of this ca UNDISPUTED

8.

A p dispute in the l increments, Issu No.1897, dated increments with dispute in the pr

9.

A p the respondent withheld vide or

10.

record that the a then General M clarification. Fu Singh Gosal, the dated 22.12.199

11.

increments were given a copy of record of his ser re-instated in t increments havi

12.

Fur

have heard learned counsel for ase. D FACTS perusal of the record shows tha language of order dated 20.11. ue No.1 i.e "Whether the def d 20.11.1985 imposed the penal hout cumulative effect? OPP" w resent appeal is Issue No.1. perusal of the record further sho since the appellants did not g rder dated 20.11.1985. e respondent approached the ap appellant disclosed that the case Manager, who had passed ord urther, the respondent was told th e then General Manager, who w

¶94e respondent appeared as PW-e withheld vide order dated 20.1 f the order passed in this regard. rvice book and there is an entry the service after inflicting of ng been stopped. rther a perusal of the record show

the parties and perused the wh at undisputedly on the basis of .1985 withholding of three ann fendant No.2 vide order bear lty of withholding of these ann was framed. Therefore, the m ows that the civil suit was filed grant him three annual increme ppellants and it is admitted fact e of the respondent was sent to, der dated 20.11.1985 for seek hat his case was sent to Sh. Kuld was posted at Chandigarh, vide le 1 and stated that his three ann

1.1985 temporarily, but he was He further stated that Ex.P/4 is on page 7 with regard to him be the punishment of three ann ws that as per letter No.27127/E

hole nual ring nual main d by ents t on king deep etter nual not eing nual

dated 22.12.19 Roadways, Fero Manager, Chan dated NIL writ defendant No.2 memo No. 9057 lying in custod produce the or appellants itself

13.

Fur that case of the order dated 20.1

20.11.1985 state More so, as per three annual inc shows the entri employee which

14.

Fur punishment of p effect was impo the appellants th in the service bo imposed and th infirmity in the District Judge, F

994, written by defendant No ozepur (Appellant No.2) to Sh ndigarh Transport Undertaking tten by Sh. Kuldeep Singh G - General Manager, Punjab Ro 7/ECC dated 24.05.1996, the en dy of postal authorities and th rder dated 20.11.1985. Meanin f was not traceable. rther, the undisputed fact is that respondent was sent to the then

11.1985 for seeking clarification ed penalty of withholding of th r service record also the entry m crements. Since, service book of es regarding salary, increment, h is filled by the office itself, ther rther, the appellants were no penalty of withholding of three osed vide order dated 20.11.198 hat they sent order dated 20.11.1 ook also states that the punishm he record of the appellant was e judgment and decree dated 0 Ferozepur.

o.2 - General Manager, Pun h. Kuldeep Singh Gosal, Gene

(CTU), as well as letter No.14 Gosal, General Manager, CTU oadways, Ferozepur, in response nquiry file was lost in transit wh herefore, the appellants could ng thereby that the record of the appellants themselves stated General Manager, who had pas . Therefore, apparently order da hree annual increments simplici made is inflicting of punishment f any employee is the record wh payment, punishment, etc., of refore, the same cannot be ignor ot able to prove, as to whet annual increments with cumulat

¶85Since it is the admitted case 1985 for clarification. Further en ment of three annual increments w lost, therefore, I do not find a

08.09.2000 passed by the learn

njab eral U to e to hile not d so itor. t of hich red. ther tive e of ntry any

12.

Con merit with no o passed by the le

13.

Dec

13.

Pen

March 05, 2025 tripti

Wh

Wh

nsequently, the present appeal order as to costs and the judgm arned District Judge, Ferozepur, cree sheet be drawn. nding application(s), if any, also .

(SU

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes

is dismissed being devoid of a ment and decree dated 08.09.20 , is upheld. stand disposed of. UDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ing