Regular Second Appeal No. 181 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 181 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 06, 2009 Mohan Lal ...........Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others .........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Bhag Singh,Advocate for the Appellant. ** Sabina, J. Mohan Lal-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 30.9.1996 imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect and the order in appeal dated 13/14.5.2003 and the order in revision dated 29.7.2003 passed by the Director General of Police, Haryana were illegal and null and void. The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ambala vide judgment and decree dated 29.8.2008 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court at Ambala. Hence, the present appeal. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional Distinct Judge, Ambala in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment reads as under:- “ 2. The appellant instituted the suit alleging that on 21.9.1995 while posted as Assistant Sub-Inspector at Control Room, Ambala, he fell seriously ill and went to civil hospital, Ambala City for treatment; that he was diagnosed with Intestine fever and Regular Second Appeal No. 181 of 2009 2 prescribed four days' rest for which he submitted application for four days' medical leave; that when his health did not improve, he contacted his family doctor named Shri D.N.Gupta, who advised bed rest to him upto 25.10.1995 and his treatment continued upto 18.12.1995; that leave application for the aforesaid period was also submitted to the authorities with the medical certificate, but he was served with the transfer order dated 27.9.1995, whereby he was transferred to Sirsa district and he was directed to join his duties within twenty four hours with the threat of disciplinary action in case of non-compliance; that he was not mentally and physically prepared for it and the transfer was without any basis; that there was no inquiry or complaint against him and his leave was also not rejected or objected to by the Department; that the transfer order was malafide displaying the arrogant attitude of the authorities; that vide order dated 16.10.1995, the appellant was placed under suspension; that the suspension was illegal and unjustified; that respondent No.3 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Telecommunication, Haryana, ordered departmental inquiry appointing Shri Khairati Lal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Telecommunication, as Enquiry Officer that thereafter, Inspector General of Police Telecommunication, issued order dated 11.10.1995 relieving him from the duties during illness overlooking the certificates of illness; that on approaching the Hon'ble High Court, appellant was reinstated and it was also stated before the Hon'ble High Court that the issue with regard to the transfer of the appellant would be decided by deciding the Regular Second Appeal No. 181 of 2009 3 representation of the appellant within fifteen days from the date of its being filed; that the appellant filed representation on 7.3.1996 to Inspector General of Police, Telecommunication, but his representation was not decided and on filing the contempt petition, contempt notice dated 19.8.2006 was sent to Shri Chander Mohan Dutt, Superintendent of Police, Telecommunication, Haryana, Panchkula and Shri Khairati Lal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Telecommunication; that the suspension order was cancelled and arrears of suspension period were paid and the departmental inquiry was also set aside; that appellant was given a show cause notice on 19.8.1996 with the proposed punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect; that on submission of the reply, Superintendent of Police, Panchkula, issued punishment order dated 13.5.2005 imposing punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect; that the appeal filed before the Director General of Police, Haryana, challenging the said punishment, was rejected on 29.7.2003 and against that order the appellant preferred the suit. 3. It was contended by the respondents in the written statement that appellant while posted in District Control Room Ambala, had consumed liquor and quarreled with Assistant Sub Inspector Anoop Singh and created problem in the government work while on duty from 16.8.1994 to 17.8.1994; that when the matter was brought to the notice of Superintendent of Police, Ambala, he directed Randhir Singh, Station House Officer, Police Regular Second Appeal No. 181 of 2009 4 Station, City, Ambala to get the appellant medico-legally examined and Station House Officer found appellant as well as Balbir Singh, Incharge Control Room under the influence of liquor and they were medico-legally examined; that Superintendent of Polie, Ambala informed Inspector General of Police, Telecommunication, and made a request to transfer the appellant from Ambala as he was habitual of quarreling, drinking, misbehaving and misconducting; that he was not ill on 21.9.1995; that he filed writ petition and managed to get four days' medical rest; that he was dealt-with departmentally for the misconduct; that on the basis of inquiry report, Superintendent of Police, Telecommunication, passed order dated 31.7.1996 for reduction in rank from Assistant Sub Inspector to Head Constable; that when the appellant failed to get the medical rest from the civil hospital, he managed the same from Dr.D.N.Gupta of Mubarikpur; that due to the misconduct and Indiscipline, the appellant was transferred from Control Room, Ambala to Control Room Sirsa vide order dated 27.9.1995, but he failed to comply with the order and thus, he was placed under suspension; that against his transfer, appellant filed a writ petition, which was disposed of with the observation that he would join at Rohtak and report on duty on 7.5.1996; that appeal was filed on 23.3.2002 before the Additional Director General of Police, Head Quarter, Panchkula, which was decided on 13.5.2003 and the Additional Director General of Police ordered for payment of arrears of salary for the suspension period and the order with regard to Regular Second Appeal No. 181 of 2009 5 stoppage of increments was held as appropriate; that revision petition of the appellant was rejected with order dated 29.7.2003; that appellant was held guilty in the depatmental inquiry and he was punished with stoppage of two future increments; that arrears of suspension period were granted" On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- “1. Whether the orders dated 30.9.96. 13/14.5.03 and 29.7.03 are wrong illegal, null and void and are liable to be set aside?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to arrears of increment with interest @ 18% per annum from the date it fell due till the date of actual realization?OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Whether suit of the plaintiff is time barred?OPD 5. Whether the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit?OPD 6. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that this appeal is devoid of merit. The case of the plaintiff is that he was working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police at Control Room, Ambala. On 21.9.1995, he applied for medical leave. However, he was served with the transfer order dated 27.9.1995. The transfer order was passed with mala fide intention. Thereafter, he was suspended vide order dated 16.10.1995 on account of non-compliance of transfer order. Plaintiff challenged the said order in this Regular Second Appeal No. 181 of 2009 6 Court and consequently, the suspension order was cancelled and he was reinstated in service. However, his two increments were ordered to be stopped with cumulative effect by holding a departmental inquiry in a legal manner. The case of the defendants, on the other hand, is that the plaintiff had consumed liquor while on duty and had quarreled with ASI Anup Singh. On medical examination, plaintiff was found to be under the influence of liquor and consequently, transfer of plaintiff was recommended as he was found to be habitual of quarreling, drinking and misbehaving. It is further the case of the defendants that after holding the proper departmental inquiry, the impugned order of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was passed against the plaintiff. The scope of judicial review regarding interference with punishment order is very limited. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is only to see the method/manner of awarding punishment. The Court is only concerned with the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority. If the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority is according to rules and natural justice, then no interference with the punishment order is called for. The Civil Court cannot go into the merits of the case. In case, the finding of the Inquiry Officer is based on some evidence, then the Court cannot reappreicate the evidence or weigh the same like the Appellate Authority. So long as there is some evidence in support of the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. Some defects in the inquiry has to be pointed out before the Civil Court can interfere with the punishment order. Further more, if defect is pointed out then the delinquent employee has to show as to what prejudice has caused to him on Regular Second Appeal No. 181 of 2009 7 account of the said defect. The Court exercising jurisdiction of judicial review is not to interfere with the finding of the fact arrived at in a departmental inquiry excepting in a case of mala fide or perversity. The finding recorded by the disciplinary authority is immune from interference within the limited scope of power of judicial review applicable to the Court. In the present case, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any fault in the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority. Before holding an inquiry, the appellant was given copy of the charge-sheet and thereafter, appellant associated himself with the inquiry procedure and gave a list of six witnesses to be examined by him in his defence. Thus, the appellant was given full opportunity to represent his case. The appellant was also granted personal hearing by the Punishing Authority. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that no ground for interference is made out as the Civil Court could not sit in the appeal over the findings of the inquiry Officer. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge July 06, 2009 arya