Avtar Singh v. Punjab State Elecy. Board Etc

IN T

Avtar Singh Punjab State Ele

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr

for SUDEEPTI SH

The

27.07.2000 pass the appeal file

02.02.1999 pass BRIEF FACTS

2.

The appellant was a effect from 25.0 entire satisfactio the grade of Rs.

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS Da

VERSUS ectricity Board and Others ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUD r. R.S.Bajaj, Advocate and r. Sachin Kalia, Advocate for the r. Mainderjit Singh Bedi, Advoca respondent Nos. 1 to 4. -.-

HARMA, J (Oral). e present appeal is preferred aga sed by the learned Additional D ed by the respondents against sed by the learned Civil Judge (S S e brief facts of the present case a appointed as Lineman in the Pu

08.1986 and the appellant has sin on of his officers. At the time of .1200-2300/- and till the date of

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-214-2001 (O&M) ate of Decision : 22.10.2024

....Appellant

....Respondent EEPTI SHARMA e appellant. ate ainst the judgment and decree da District Judge, Hoshiarpur, wher the judgment and decree da Sr. Divn.), Hoshiarpur, is allowed as stated in the civil suit are that unjab State Electricity Board w nce then performed his duties to f his appointment, he was placed f his termination, he was being p

ated eby ated d. with d in

Rs.1200/- p.m a annual incremen

It No.13796/E.P d against him. Th alleged that the report or the li appointed as En The Enquiry Of of Flying Squad charges against the plaintiff in statements of tw allowed to cross to the appellant. the appellant w has been challen jurisdiction etc. are that the cha thereto by the a with the rules an by a co-employe

3.

Up wherein they co the suit filed by

as basic pay plus other allowanc nt was given to him during his en is alleged that the appellant dated 11.05.2003 levelling cer he appellant filed his explanation said charge sheet was not acco st of documents or the list of nquiry Officer in a mechanical m fficer imparted his personal kno de of the Board dated 21.10.19 him without giving due weighta reply to the charge sheet. T wo PWs in the presence of the s-examine them and the names o . Vide impugned order No.371/ were terminated which terminatio nged by the appellant in his suit etc. The grounds for setting asi arge-sheet supplied to him was appellant was not considered. E nd the appellant was denied the h ee to assist him during the course on notice, the respondents app ontended that the appellant had y him is maintainable. On meri

ce admissible to an employee as ntire service period. was served with a charge sh rtain false and fabricated char n/reply thereto on 15.09.1993. I ompanied by a copy of prelimin witnesses. Respondent No.2 w manner without applying the mi owledge and acting upon the rep 86 held the appellant guilty of age to the explanation furnished The Enquiry Officer recorded plaintiff but the appellant was of witnesses were also not disclo T-366 dated 28.06.1996 services on of the services of the appell as illegal, wrong ultravires with de of the impugned order inter-s vague and indefinite. The re Enquiry was not held in accorda help of a legal practitioner or atle e of enquiry. peared and filed written statem no locus-standi to file the suit its they admitted that the appell

s no heet rges It is nary was ind. port d by not osed s of lant hout alia eply ance east ment nor

was posted as appellant got ap Further that his 1800. Further c advertised and t appellant subm

21.4.1982 whic Sultanpur Lodhi also produced Appointment Co some bogus and Electricity Boar Vigilance Dep Department held on the basis of document. A s some other app the appellant on Enquiry Officer competent autho appellant got a issued by the au cause notice to received by the consequently th

lineman on 25.08.1986. Th ppointment in the Punjab State E s pay-scale was Rs.450-800, wh contention of the respondents w the appellant applied for the sam mitted a certificate of experien ch purported to have been iss i. At that time, a few other perso experience certificate alongw ommittee came to know that so d forged certificates alongwith th rd and therefore, the Selection C artment of Punjab State Ele d an enquiry in the matter and fo f which the appellant got appoin similar report was submitted by plicants also. Consequently, the n 11.05.1993 and the appellant r was appointed on 03.02.1994 ority. As per his report the ce appointment was forged and fa uthority the certificate shows. Th the appellant and then issued appellant but the appellant did he services of the appellant

hey, however, contended that Electricity Board by playing fra hich was later revised as Rs.12 was that the posts of Lineman w me. Alongwith his application, nce for the period 30.08.1980 sued by SDO (RE) Sub Divis ons also applied for the posts. Th with their application. Later ome of the applicants had produ heir applications to the Punjab St Committee referred the matter to ectricity Board. The Vigila ound that the experience certific ntment, was forged and fabrica y the Vigilance Department aga respondent issued charge-sheet t filed its reply on 15.9.1993. 4, who submitted his report to ertificate on the basis of which abricated one and had never b he competent authority issued sh d a reminder also which was d not give any reply to the same were rightly terminated by

aud. 200-were to sion hey uced tate ance ate, ated inst t to An een how

competent autho the appellant ha the respondents

4.

In respondents in th

5.

Fro the learned Tria

¶1resp nat

2. OP

3. OP

4.

6.

Aft learned Civil Ju

02.02.1999, dec was not done to his services we procedure presc

7.

The

02.02.1999. Th respondents vid

ority vide impugned order date as been terminated from the ser prayed for dismissal of the suit. the replication, the appellant co heir written statement and reitera om the pleadings of the parties, th l Court:- Whether the impugned o pondent No.2 is illegal, null and tural justice as alleged? OPP Whether the plaintiff is enti PP Whether the plaintiff has go PD. Relief. ter hearing both the parties and udge (Sr. Division), Hoshiarpur, creed the suit in favour of the a o the appellant by not supplying ere wrongly terminated by the ribed for imposition of major pe e respondents filed appeal again he learned First Appellate Co de its judgment and decree da

ed 28.6.1996. Thus contending t rvices after adopting the procedu

ontroverted the pleas taken by ated those contained in the plain he following issues were framed order dated 28.6.96 passed d void and against the principles itled to the declaration prayed f ot no locus-standi to file the su d considering the whole record, vide its judgment and decree da appellant on the ground that just g him a copy of enquiry report respondents without adopting enalty. nst the judgment and decree da ourt accepted the appeal of ated 27.07.2000 and set aside

that ure, nt. d by by s of for? uit ? ated tice

judgment and Hoshiarpur.

8.

Hen SUBMISSION

9.

Lea decree dated 2 Hoshiarpur is ag contends that t judgment and de be allowed and First Appellate C

10.

Per judgment and d Judge, Hoshiarp

11.

I h record of this ca

12.

Rel learned Addition "11 by pla

decree dated 02.02.1999 by nce the present appeal. OF THE LEARNED COUNS arned counsel for the appellan

27.07.2000 passed by the le gainst law and facts and the same the learned Additional District ecree dated 02.02.1999. Therefo the judgment and decree dated Court be set aside. r contra learned counsel for th decree dated 27.07.2000 passed pur and prayed for the dismissal o have heard learned counsel for ase. levant portion of the judgment nal District Judge, Hoshiarpur is

¶1I have given anxious consid the learned counsel for appellan e file shows that the learned aintiff/respondent mainly on follo a) Plaintiff/respond of the enquiry Department aga

the Civil Judge (Sr. Divisio EL FOR THE PARTIES nt contends that the judgment a earned Additional District Jud e is liable to be set aside. He furt Judge has wrongly reversed ore, he prays that the present app d 27.07.2000 passed by the learn he State argued on the lines of by the learned Additional Dist of present appeal. the parties and perused the wh t dated 27.07.2000 passed by s reproduced as under:- deration to the arguments advan nts and find merit in it. A perusa trial Court decreed the suit owing three grounds :- dent was not made available c report submitted by the Vigila ainst him and other employees.

on), dge, ther peal ned trict hole ced al of t of opy

¶12Vig Wh pla ma was he No. this rep pur disc tha title was adv

b) Appellants/defen experience cert selection was fa c) Plaintiff/respond opportunity to d

The first point for appreciati gilance Department was not su hat is its effect? A perusa aintiff/respondent was served w de a request to the department s allowed to inspect the record e Vigilance Department alongwi gave receipt to the Enquiry O .26 (re-numbered as page 217) s fact, it is clear that the plaint e report of Vigilance Departme port. It is important to note that rely advisory in nature. It is ciplinary authority and its view at case, even if report of Vigilan e employer, it cannot vitiate the ed "State Bank of India Vs. HK s observed that Vigilance C visory. It is not an appellate au e disciplinary authority and its

ndants failed to prove if tificate produced at the time ake and bogus. dent was not given reasona defend himself. ion before me is if the report of upplied to the plaintiff/responde al of the file shows that with charge-sheet Ex.P-1 and to inspect the entire record and and he also inspected the repor ith other record and to that eff Officer and that receipt is at p in the enquiry file Ex.D-1. Fr tiff/respondent was made availa ent and he had gone through t Vigilance Commission's functio not an Appellate Authority or ws are not mandatory in nature ce Department was not supplied e enquiry in any manner. In c Dogra 1995(2) PLR Page-698" Commission's function is pur uthority over the enquiry officer views are not mandatory but

of able f the ent. he d he rt of fect, age rom able that n is . In d to case ", it rely r or

mer Com prin def PLR Pin und for jus

¶13ord circ this

¶14cer pla evid Sta req alo app cer issu App

rely advisory in nature. O mmission not supplied-effect-D nciples of natural justice deny fence before disciplinary autho R-669, VK Verma Vs. The H njore and another", it was obser der the standing orders applicab the furnishing of copy of enqu tice not violated.

In the instant case, enquiry der and if enquiry report of Vigil e employer, the principles of natu cumstances, I do not agree with s point.

The second point for appre rtificate which was produced aintiff/respondent was found to b dence before the Enquiry Office ate Electricity Board published quired from every candidate ongwith the application. Pla pellant board for the post of rtificate of experience for the pe ued by the SDO (RE) Sub-Div pointment Committee came to

One line approval of Vigila Does not amount to violation ying the respondent right to f ority. Similarly, in case "1998 Hindustan Machine Tools Limit rved that if enquiry was conduc ble to the petitioner, did not prov uiry report... Principles of natu was conducted under the stand lance Department is not supplied ural justice are not violated. In s h the findings of the trial court eciation before me is if experie at the time of selection of be fake and bogus, is not proved er or even in the Court. The Punj d the post of lineman and it w to submit experience certific intiff/respondent applied to lineman and he also produced eriod from 30.8.1980 to 21.4.19 vision Sultanpur Lodhi. When know that some of the candida

nce of fair 8(3) ted, cted vide ural ding d to uch t on ence d in njab was cate d a

pro Vig Vig num Vig gen rep issu pre enq atta app pag for yea Lod from cor not

oduced bogus certificates, then gilance Department of Punjab gilance Department submitted its mbered as page No.177) in th gilance Department found that c nuine and that of some of appli d they sent report to the comp port of the Vigilance Departme d charge-sheet was given to the ued to the plaintiff to join the en d inspected the record. Witne esence of plaintiff/respondent. A quiry officer regarding the e ached with the application, fro d he certified that the experie plication for appointment of Av e period 30.8.1980 to 21.4.1982 e SDO and the initials and signa ge No.25 (re-numbered as 219) appellants/defendants has also ar 1982 there was no division of dhi, so there is no question of is m Sultanpur Lodhi. At that tim rnered in this regard, learned c t able to contradict the same.

n the matter was referred to State Electricity Board and s report which is at page No.30 ( he enquiry file Ex. D-1 and certificates of some applicants icants including plaintiff are bog petent authority. On receipt of ent, enquiry officer was appoin e plaintiff/respondent. Notices w nquiry. He even joined the enqu esses were also examined in A certificate was also taken by experience certificate which w om the concerned officer of PSE ence certificate attached with tar Singh son of Malook Singh is bogus and was never signed ature on the certificate are bogus ). Shri VK Gupta, learned coun o brought to my notice that in f SDO/RES/Dn. PSEB at Sultanp suing any certificate by that offi me SDO/RES was at Batala. Wh ounsel for plaintiff/respondent w . When there was no division

(re-are gus nted were uiry was EB, for d by s at nsel pur ficer When was

SD que enq wit bog evid cou Civ tria ten

¶15rea pla pla he leg doe des pag exa oat gav

DO/RES at Sultanpur Lodhi at t estion of examining the officer w quiry officer shows that he exam d he came to the conclusion th th the application for appointm gus. It is well settled law tha dence led before the Enquiry O urt about the findings of the enq 3 State of Haryana Versus Rag vil Court cannot sit as an appell al court that enquiry was cond able.

The third point for apprec asonable opportunity to defen aintiff/respondent. From the enqu aintiff/ respondent received notic appeared before the enquiry o gal assistance and lateron, he ga es not want to engage any coun sired to contest his case as his o ge-215) in the enquiry file Ex. amined Kamaljit Chopra, Additi th that he gave full opportunity ve full opportunity to consult th e transfer of Kamaljit Chopra, M

the relevant time, then there is who issued it. A perusal of repor mined six witnesses in this resp hat experience certificate attach ment by the plaintiff/responden t Civil Court cannot re-open Officer and cannot sit as appell quiry officer. In case 1985(1) P ghbir Singh", it was held that late court. Thus, the findings of ducted without any evidence is ciation before me is whether nd himself was granted to uiry file Ex. D-1, it is clear that ce given by the Enquiry Officer a officer and also requested to t ave in writing on 19.4.1995 that nsel to defend his case and he a own at page No.27 (re-numbered D-1. Even appellants/ defenda ional S.E, as DW-2 who stated to the plaintiff/respondent and a he record during the enquiry. Af Mr. Agya Singh Saini conducted

rt of pect hed t is late PLJ-f the not take t he also d as ants d on also

enq abo insp aut offi exp term Aut

¶28pla Sha con In pla pun

13.

The Judge, Hoshiarp the basis of fak Vigilance Depa Vigilance Depar upon the appella and he joined en

quiry who appeared as DW-3 an out his enquiry to the plaintiff/ pite of notice and then he wa ereafter enquiry officer proceed e evidence. He gave a detailed thority. The Punishing Authority ficer to Avtar Singh, plaintiff/resp perience certificate is found to b minated and he was also aske thority. Thereafter, Punishing

6.1996 which is Ex.P-7, after aintiff/respondent. In case " ahoodul Haque Versus The Regi d another", it was observed t nduct not availed of, principles the instance case, sufficient aintiff/respondent to explain his nishing authority." e above referred to reasoning pur is self-speaking and detailed ke and bogus experience certif artment of Punjab State Electrici rtment, enquiry officer was appo ant. Further notices were issued nquiry and inspected the record.

nd stated that he gave notices/lett respondent but he never appea s proceeded against ex-parte a ded with the enquiry and record d report Ex. D-5 to the Punish y also sent the report of the enqu pondent and also wrote to him t be fake and why not his services ed to appear before the Punish g Authority passed order da giving proper opportunity to "AIR-1974 Supreme Court-18 istrar, Cooperative Societies, Bi that opportunity given to expl of natural justice are not violat t opportunity was given to s case by the enquiry officer a given by the Additional Dist d. The appellant got appointment ficate which was enquired by ity Board. On receipt of report ointed and charge-sheet was serv d to the appellant to join the enqu . Witnesses were also examined

ters ared ded hing uiry that s be hing ated ihar lain ted. trict t on t of ved uiry

the presence of regarding the ex the concerned o attached with th for the period 3 SDO and the in report, enquiry experience cert appellant was bo

14.

In v decree dated 2 Hoshiarpur. Th of any merit.

15.

Pen

October 22, 202 tripti

Wh

Wh

f the appellant. A certificate was xperience certificate which was officer of PSEB, and he certif he application for appointment o

30.08.1980 to 21.04.1982 was b nitials and signatures of the cert officer examined six witnesses tificate attached with the app ogus. view of the above, I do not find

27.7.2000 passed by the lea he same is upheld and the presen nding applications, if any, also st

(SU

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

s also taken by the enquiry offi attached with the application, fr fied that the experience certific of Avtar Singh S/o Malooka Sin bogus and was never signed by tificate are bogus. As per enqu and he came to the conclusion t plication for appointment by d any infirmity in the judgment arned Additional District Jud nt appeal is dismissed being dev tand disposed of. UDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ing

ficer rom cate ngh uiry that dge,