Regular Second Appeal No.1814 of 2010 (O & M ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 23, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No.1814 of 2010 (O & M ) Dharampal ….Appellant Versus Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary .. Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate, for Mr.Chetan Dayal, Advocate, for the respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Plaintiff Dharampal is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below whereby his suit for declaration to the effect that the office order dated Regular Second Appeal No.1814 of 2010 (O & M ) 12.9.2003 whereby a recovery of Rs.4,40,093.92 along with punishment of stoppage of two increments without future effect had been imposed upon him was illegal and mala fide, unconstitutional etc. and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent Punjab State Electricity Board (for short `the Board’) from effecting recovery of Rs.4,40,093.92 from the plaintiff has been dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The plaintiff-appellant was appointed as Lineman and joined as such with the Board on 12.10.1973. He was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer on 12.1.1984. He was served with a shows cause notice dated 23.10.1992 by the Chief Engineer of the Board, to which the plaintiff filed reply on 10.1.1995. The allegations in the show cause notice pertained to shortage of material which was in the custody of the plaintiff as a Junior Engineer of the Board. After considering the reply of the plaintiff, a regular inquiry was ordered by the Board. The allegations of shortage of material were proved against the plaintiff in the regular inquiry. The plaintiff had been supplied with all the documents. The disciplinary authority in respect of the plaintiff was the Chief Engineer of the Board, who had passed the order of punishment, which was the subject matter of the suit. The trial Court, after framing issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, recording the evidence led by the plaintiff, taking on record the documents tendered in evidence by the Board and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 26.2.2007. The plaintiff, aggrieved against the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Regular Second Appeal No.1814 of 2010 (O & M ) Court, went in appeal before the lower appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.1.2010. Hence this regular second appeal by the plaintiff-appellant. During the course of arguments, much stress was laid by the learned counsel for the plaintiff on the point that sufficient opportunity of hearing had not been provided to the plaintiff in the regular departmental inquiry conducted against him and, as such, the punishment imposed upon him by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the findings arrived at by the inquiry officer in the inquiry report was against the principles of natural justice. However, after giving my thoughtful consideration to this argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any substance therein. Plaintiff-appellant Dharampal appeared in the witness box as P.W.1. He admitted that he had submitted reply to the show cause notice, which was entered in the receipt register maintained by the office of the Board. The receipt of the reply is shown at serial No.14671 dated 25.7.1991 of the said receipt register maintained. In spite of this, the plaintiff claimed that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. In his cross-examination, plaintiff Dharampal (P.W.1) admitted that he had appeared in the inquiry proceedings on 20.12.1999 and thereafter on 14.2.2000 and 6.9.2000. However, thereafter the plaintiff stopped attending the inquiry proceedings. Exhibit D.28 shows the proceedings of the inquiry and its perusal reveals that on many dates the plaintiff had failed to appear before the inquiry officer for one reason or the other. Fed up with this attitude of the plaintiff, the inquiry officer had issued a strict warning to the plaintiff on 19.1.2001 to participate in the inquiry proceedings Regular Second Appeal No.1814 of 2010 (O & M ) otherwise inquiry proceedings would be conducted ex parte against him. Besides, on 19.2.2001, the plaintiff was afforded last opportunity to submit a revised reply. However, on the subsequent dates of hearing i.e 26.2.2001 and 26.3.2001, the plaintiff chose not to appear before the inquiry officer. On one occasion, the plaintiff had shown his revised reply to the inquiry officer, which was not legible. The plaintiff was advised to submit a properly typed reply. The plaintiff thereafter neither sent any intimation to the inquiry officer nor appeared before him. It was on this account that ex parte proceedings were conducted against the plaintiff and on the basis of documents produced by the Board before the inquiry officer, the shortage of material in the custody of the plaintiff was found. All the above-mentioned facts clearly show that the plaintiff was fully aware of the inquiry proceedings against him and he had left no stone unturned in delaying the same for one reason or the other. The plaintiff was afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing before the inquiry report was finalized against him. If some documents had not been supplied to the plaintiff, as alleged by his counsel, the plaintiff would have asked for the same by joining the inquiry proceedings. Had the plaintiff associated himself with the inquiry proceedings regularly, it would have become imperative for the inquiry officer to supply the plaintiff whatever documents he wanted. The conduct of the plaintiff, however, showed that he was not interested in co-operating with the inquiry officer. It was under these circumstances that both the Courts below, inter alia, held that the Civil Court is not to sit as a Court of appeal against the departmental inquiry and punishment order if the delinquent employee had been afforded Regular Second Appeal No.1814 of 2010 (O & M ) proper opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of arguments, could not persuade me, by referring to any case law relevant on the subject or by pointing out any material on record showing that the findings recorded by both the Courts below are not based on proper appreciation of evidence, to take a different view than the one taken by the Courts below. In the result, there is no substance in this appeal. The same is, accordingly, hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Dated: February 23, 2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE