State of Pb v. Dina Nath

IN T

State of Punjab Dina Nath

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

for

SUDEEPTI SH

The

16.08.2001 pass filed by respon

28.05.1999 pass Sahib, dismissin

2.

The is a permanen Undertaking of to the plaintiff Constitution of General Mana

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS Da

VERSUS

ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUD r. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Pun the appellant. ne for the respondent. -.-

HARMA, J (Oral). e present appeal is filed again sed by the learned District Jud ndent-Dina Nath was allowed sed by the learned Addl. Civil J ng the suit, was set aside. e brief facts stated before the lea nt employee of Punjab Gov Punjab Government and Punjab f and he is entitled for the p India. It is further averred that ager, Punjab Roadways Nan

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-4887-2001 (O&M) ate of Decision : 15.10.2024

....Appellant

....Respondent EEPTI SHARMA njab nst the judgment and decree da dge, Rupnagar, whereby the app and judgment and decree da Judge (Senior Division), Anand arned Trial Court are that Dina N vernment i.e. Punjab Roadw b Civil Service Rules are applica protection of Article 311 of t the impugned order passed by ngal is illegal, null and vo

ated peal ated dpur Nath ways able oid,

unconstitutional were not follow Rules and the respondent-Dina seriously ill. On All the charges i alleged that the charge-sheet iss and is not bindi not been supplie supply of docum to the charge sh has been affor Officer; that the been supplied to Officer is illega is given to the witnesses; that plaintiff-respond that there is vi Services (Punis demanded the fi the relevant do Roadways Nan

l, repugnant, etc., and the estab wed and without jurisdiction and notification of the Governmen a Nath received a message fro n false charge, he was stated to b in the charge sheet are stated to b e aforesaid order is liable to be sued by the defendant-appellant ing on the plaintiff-respondent ed to the plaintiff-respondent an ments, he has not prepared prope eet is not considered by the com rded to the plaintiff-responden e copy of the findings of the Enq o the plaintiff-respondent and th l and not binding upon the plain e plaintiff-respondent for cross no procedure has been explain dent: that no personal hearing i olation of rules 8.8, 8.4, 8.11, hment and Appeal) Rules, 197 indings of the Enquiry report but cuments. It is further alleged t ngal illegally withheld the rem

blished principles of natural just d against the Punjab Civil Serv nt. It is further alleged that om the village that his wife w be absent from duty on 29.03.19 be false and motivated. It is furt e set aside on the grounds i.e. t No.2 is not according to the ru , that the relevant documents h nd he was prejudiced and due to n er defence of his case; that the re mpetent authority and no opportun nt before appointing the Enqu quiry Officer and complaint has hat the appointment of the Enqu ntiff-respondent: that no opportun s-examination of the departmen ned by the enquiry officer to s given to the plaintiff-responde , 8.18, 8.21, 8.23 of Punjab C 0 and that the plaintiff-respond t the Enquiry Officer did not sup that the General Manager, Pun maining suspension allowance

tice vice was

¶996ther ules have non eply nity uiry not uiry nity ntal ent: Civil dent pply njab

illegally stopped that the registe respondent befo said notice, Hen

¶3Upon not allegations in th reply to the char

¶4On the ple 1) 59/ OP 2) dec 3) def 4) pre 5) Pay 6) 7)

d two increments with the cum ered notice U/s 80 CPC has ore filing the suit and the defend nce the suit. tice written statement was file he suit while stating therein tha rge-sheet. eadings of the parties, the follow Whether the order dated /ST/JM is illegal, null and void PP If issue No.1 is proved wh claration as prayed for? OPP Whether no notice u/s 80 fendants before filing the suit? O Whether the suit of the pl esent form? OPD Whether the Civil suit is yment and Wages Act, 1936? OP Whether the plaintiff is stop instant suit? OPD Relief.

mulative effect. It is further alle been served upon the defenda dant-respondent did not reply to ed by the defendants denying at the plaintiff did not submit a wing issues were framed:- d 23.09.1997 bearing No.62 and not binding upon the plaint hether the plaintiff is entitled CPC has been served upon OPD laintiff is not maintainable in barred under Section 22 of PD pped by his act and conduct to

ged ant-any 257-tiff? for

5.

Aft dismissed the su The relevant por "7. exa driv fur No. opp pas

¶29atte day sta rec sam Ex. be sui

¶8ten

¶9ord stop

ter hearing learned counsel for t uit of the plaintiff-respondent v rtion of the same is reproduced i In order to prove this issue amined Dina Nath who stated on ver bearing No. 104 in the Nang ther stated that the order dated 2 . 2 is wrong and illegal. He furt portunity and he was also not su ssing this order. He further state

03.1996 because his wife was end the duty. He further stated y by the department and stoppe ted that he gave a notice Ex. ceipt Ex. P2 through his counse me is Ex. P3. He further stated P4 which may kindly be set as released and he may be paid th t may be decreed. On the other hand, the Ld dered into photocopies of the en The Ld, counsel for the pl der Ex. P4 dated 23.09.1997 vid pped is illegal, null and void

the parties, the learned Trial Co ide its judgment dated 28.05.19 is as under:- e, the Ld. Counsel for the plain n oath that he has been working gal Depot for the last 10 years.

23.09.1997 passed by the defend ther stated that he was not given upplied necessary documents bef ed that he had applied for leave ill on that day and he could that he was marked absent on t ed his four increments. He furt PI to the defendants vide pos el and the acknowledgement of that the order dated 23.09.1996 side and his increments may kin e arrears of the increments and d. Law Officer for the defenda nquiry file Ex. D1. laintiff has argued that impugn de which four increments has b and may kindly be set aside.

ourt

¶999ntiff g as He dant n an fore e on not that ther stal 6 is ndly his ants ned een

fur doc imp

¶10arg tele res doc enq D1

¶11pla

¶12ma he file con Ex. ord forc full

ther argued that no opportun cuments were supplied to the pugned order.

On the other hand, the Id. L gued that the plaintiff remained egram to resume the duties bu ume the duty. So according cuments ware duly supplied to h quiry, his four increments were s , therefore, the suit of the plaintif

I have considered the conte aintiff and the Ld. Law Officer fo

The perusal of the file Ex.D de the statement before the En e charge-sheet and all the docum does not require any more docu e shows that a thorough enquiry e rules of C.S.R. (Punishmen nducting thorough enquiry, the P4 was passed by the defend der in the eyes of law, therefore ce in the arguments of the Ld. ly agree with the contention

nity of hearing was granted e plaintiff before passing of Law Officer for the defendants absent from duty and he was gi ut despite that he did not care gly, he was charge-sheeted a him and after conducting thorou supplied and the enquiry file is iff may kindly be dismissed. entions of the Ld, counsel for r the defendants. D1 page 41 shows that the plain nquiry Officer that he has recei ments and he specifically stated t uments. The perusal of the enqu was conducted in accordance w nt and Appeal) Rules and af impugned order dated 23.09.19 dant to. 2 which is perfectly le e, I do not find any substance a counsel for the plaintiff wherea of the Ld. Law Officer, for

or has iven e to and ugh Ex. ntiff ived that uiry with fter egal and

def of t

6.

The Court was cha Appellate Court dated 16.08.200 reproduced as un "10 app on ind eve whe him his app tha ple him app to h to s eve retu

fendants. so this issue is decided the defendants." e judgment and decree dated 28. allenged by the plaintiff/respon t and the learned first Appellate 01, allowed the appeal. The nder:-

¶0I have carefully gone thro pellant is that his wife fell ill on leave. He has sent a telegram dicating that "I'll unwell to atte er served upon the appellant. en the appellant had failed to jo m requiring him to join the duty, duty and then charge sheet va pellant through registered post at the appellant did not care to jo ea of the appellant is that no no m. The respondents though have pellant asking him to join his du him at his home address. But the show that notice or telegram w en postal receipt or registered c urned by the family member of

d against the plaintiff and in fav .05.1999 passed by the learned t ndent-Dina Nath before the f Court vide its judgment and dec relevant portion of the same ough the record. The plea of n 26.03.1996. So, he was proceed m on 31.07.1996 to the departm end office few days". No letter w The respondent have alleged t oin his duty a telegram was sen But, the appellant has failed to j as framed which was duly sent at his home address. But, desp oin his duty. On the other hand, otice or telegram was served up e alleged that telegram was sen uty and charge sheet was also s ere is no document lying on the f was ever served upon the appella cover received back and which w f appellant has not been placed

vour trial first cree e is ded ment was that t to join t to pite pon t to sent file ant, was

resp was pla dep pla enq The has pun ser and The also on SUBMISSIONS

7.

Lea reversed the fin

15.06.1998, dec the order dated 2 cumulative effec did not take int that plaintiff/res

e file of this court. The learned L pondent has conceded this fact s never served upon the appella aced on the file, it is apparent th partmental enquiry initiated aga aced on the file any document to quiry proceedings, the appellan e appellant has joined his duty s not been given personal hea nishment. Thus, when the resp rvice of charge sheet and show c e entire enquiry proceedings con d void and have no effect on leg e punishment imposed upon the o illegal, null and void. Thus, th Issue No.1 and 2 are incorrect a S OF THE LEARNED COUN arned State counsel contends tha ndings of the learned trial Co cided on 28.05.1999, whereby,

23.09.1997 vide which four incr ct were stopped. He further con to consideration the evidence on spondent-Dina Nath made statem

Law Officer appearing on behalf that telegram or registered no ant personally. From the docume hat appellant had been pursuing ainst him. The respondents have o show that during the pendency nt was aver asked to join his du only on 27.03.1997. The appell aring before passing the order pondents have failed to prove cause notice upon the appellant, nducted by the respondents are n gal rights of the plaintiff/appella appellant by punishing authori he finding of the learned trial Co and has to be set aside. SEL FOR THE PARTIES at the learned first Appellate Co ourt in the Civil Suit No.207 the plaintiff/respondent challeng rements of plaintiff/respondent w ntends that the first Appellate Co n record i.e. Ex.D-1, which sho ment before the Enquiry Officer t

lf of tice ents not y of uty. lant r of , so null ant. ities ourt ourt of ged with ourt ows

he received the stated that he d Appellate Court the ground that passing the orde

8.

9.

I ha record of this ca

10.

A p was given suffi passed as per t enquiry.

11.

A p did not apply it (Senior Division decree dated 28 document place and in favour of

12.

A p Appellant Court observed that no on the other h departmental en first Appellate C

copies of charge-sheet and all does not require any more doc t has dismissed the appeal filed b t the appellant has not been g er of punishment. one has put in appearance on be ave heard learned counsel for th ase. perusal of the record shows tha icient opportunities of being he the Punishment and Appeal Ru perusal of the record further show ts judicial mind and not even t n), Anandpur Sahib while dismis .05.1999 has categorically taken ed before it and decided Issue N f the appellant-State. perusal of judgment dated 16.0 t shows that on the one hand th o show cause notice was given hand it observed that the plain nquiry initiated against him. T Court for allowing the appeal is n

the documents and he specifica cument, whereas, the learned f by the appellant-State of Punjab given any personal hearing bef ehalf of the plaintiff/respondent. he appellants and perused the wh at plaintiff/respondent – Dina N ard and the punishment order w ules and after conducting thorou ws that the learned Appellate Co the learned Additional Civil Ju ssing the suit vide its judgment n into consideration each and ev No.1 against the plaintiff/respond

8.2001, passed by the learned f he learned first Appellate Court to the plaintiff/respondent wher ntiff/respondent was pursuing The reasoning given by the learn not acceptable to this Court.

ally first b on fore

hole Nath was ugh ourt dge and very dent first has reas

13.

A p Trial Court show plaintiff/respond

14.

In v and decree dated and judgment a upheld.

15.

Dec

16.

Pen

October 05, 202 tripti

Wh

Wh

perusal of the judgement dated ws that the appropriate opportun dent before passing the punishme view of the above, the present a d 16.08.2001 passed by the learn and decree dated 28.05.1999 pa cree sheet be drawn. nding applications, if any, also st

(SU

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

28.05.1999 passed by the learn nity of being heard was given to ent order. appeal is allowed and the judgm ned first Appellate Court is set as assed by the learned trial Cour tand disposed of. UDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ing

ned ment side