R.S.A NO. 3865 OF 2008 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A NO. 3865 OF 2008 (O & M) DECIDED ON : 15.12.2009 Dilawar Singh Tiwana ...Appellant versus Teja Singh Tiwana ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. SABINA, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration against the defendants which was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar, vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.2007. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 04.08.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the Appellate Court in paras No.2 to 4 of its judgment, are as under : “2. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that he was serving as Warder in the Jail department which is owned and controlled by the Punjab Government, being its employee and that vide order bearing No. 79 R.S.A NO. 3865 OF 2008 (O & M) -2- bearing further endorsement No.5276-78/PB. Dated 25.6.2003 passed by the Superintendent, his five years service has been permanently forfeited and even wages withheld during the suspension period i.e w.e.f 5.8.2002 till date, had also been forfeited and that the said order is illegal and unwarranted and even punishment awarded to him is beyond the scope of Rule 5 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) and as such the same is inoperative against him. It is further averred that he was put under suspension on 5.8.2002 and thereafter he was served with memorandum of charge under the rules and was charged to the effect that on 4.8.2002 while he was on Panja Gast duty he had allegedly handed over something to one convict namely Gurpreet Singh with a further direction to hand over to another convict Harjit Singh and when the convict Gurpreet Singh was again checked in the presence of Asst. Superintendent Baldev Singh and Deputy Superintendent Iqbaljit Singh, from his inner pocket 19 gms smack was found and thereby the plaintiff has violated the provisions of Jail Manual and other relevant rules. The plaintiff was discharged by Special Judge vide order dated 7.5.2003 in case lodged under FIR No. 335/2002. The plaintiff filed reply to the charge sheet but no opportunity was R.S.A NO. 3865 OF 2008 (O & M) -3- afforded to defend under the rules nor he was provided an opportunity to inspect the relevant material on the basis of which the department had proposed to sustain the allegations and even evidence favourable to the plaintiff during enquiry was discarded and as such the enquiry officer did not act in an judicious manner. It is further averred that a show cause notice was served upon him and reply filed by the plaintiff was not considered and the impugned order dated 25.06.2003 was passed which is totally null and void and is not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled to benefits attached to his post and hence the present suit. 3. Upon notice, the defendants filed written statement raising preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable and denied the legality and validity of notice under section 80 of CPC. On merits, the plaintiff being employee of defendants and impugned order issued by Superintendent Head Quarter Jail is admitted. It is submitted that on 4.8.2002 when the plaintiff was on duty of 'Panja Gast', he had handed over something to one of the prisoner Gurpreet Singh with a direction to give the same to under trial Harjit Singh and on the basis of suspension, prisoner Gurpeet Singh was searched in the presence of the officials R.S.A NO. 3865 OF 2008 (O & M) -4- and he was found in possession of 19 grams of smack and as such the plaintiff has violated the provision of Punjab Jail Manual etc. It is further submitted that the plaintiff was afforded opportunity during the enquiry and the impugned order is legal. Rest of the allegations contained in plaint are denied and dismissal of the suit is prayed for. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court : 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for ? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for want of legal and valid notice ? OPD 3. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal. Plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery basing his claim that he had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant. The defendant had sold his property on the basis of said Power of Attorney, but had failed to pay the consideration amount qua the sale deeds of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also R.S.A NO. 3865 OF 2008 (O & M) -5- sought compensation received from the Improvement Trust, Patiala and has sought rendition of accounts. Defendant admitted the execution of the sale deeds by him on behalf of the plaintiff. Defendant further pleaded in the written statement that the amount of sale consideration had been paid to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the plaintiff was required to prove his case by leading cogent evidence. However, the plaintiff has not led any evidence in support of his case. The plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box for his examination-in-chief and was partly cross-examined. Thereafter, the cross- examination of the plaintiff was deferred. However, the plaintiff did not appear in the Court for further cross-examination. In these circumstances, the learned District Judge rightly held that it was a case of no evidence. The case of the plaintiff could not be decreed, merely on the basis of pleadings. It is a settled proposition of law that the plaintiff has to plead and prove his case and to stand on his own legs. In this case, the plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence in support of his case. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. DECEMBER 10, 2009 (SABINA) shalini JUDGE