Regular Second Appeal No. 3797 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3797 of 2007 Date of Order: 29.09.2008 State of Punjab and others ...Applicants Versus Santokh Singh, Veterinary Pharmacist. ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. H.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab, for the appellants. Mr. D.K.Bhatti, Advocate for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The short question that arises for adjudication in this appeal is whether the trial Court and the first appellate Court, committed any error, as while quashing the enquiry report and the order of punishment, as they failed to grant liberty to proceed with the enquiry afresh. The plaintiff-respondent, filed a suit for declaration, challenging the order of his punishment dated 09.06.1995, imposing stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit primarily on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the respondent filed an appeal. The first appellate Court, set aside the trial court's judgment and decree and quashed the order of punishment as also the enquiry, by holding that the enquiry had been conducted in gross violation of the mandatory Regular Second Appeal No. 3797 of 2007 -2- provisions of Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, as the witness who was not referred to in the list of witnesses were examined, letters that did not form a part of the list of documents were relied upon, though the respondent was summoned to appear in the enquiry on 10.01.1995, the evidence of the management was recorded, on the same day, the respondent's request to cross-examine the witness was declined and the enquiry proceedings were concluded on the same day. Counsel for the appellants does not impugn these findings on merits but puts forth an assertion that while decreeing the suit and quashing the enquiry and the order of punishment, the first appellate Court should have granted liberty to the appellants to proceed with the enquiry afresh. It is prayed that denial of this opportunity would in essence prevent the appellants from taking action against the respondent in accordance with law. Counsel for the respondent submits that the first appelalte Court has neither granted nor rejected any such prayer and, therefore, it is upto the appellants to conduct or not to conduct an enquiry subjects to the rights available to the appellants. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the judgments. As noticed herein above, the first appellate Court, set aside the enquiry and the order of punishment for serious infractions of the rules. The judgment, however, neither debars nor allows the appellants to conduct a fresh enquiry. Where departmental proceedings are set aside for violations that are procedural in nature, an opportunity to rectify these errors to conduct departmental proceedings in accordance with the prescribed procedure, should be granted. Failure to grant such permission would place a premium upon incumbents who violate statutory rules of conduct. Regular Second Appeal No. 3797 of 2007 -3- Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the order passed by the first appellate Court is modified to the extent that the appellants would be at liberty to conduct a fresh enquiry, by appointing a fresh enquiry officer and thereafter proceed in accordance with law to consider the cases against the respondent-plaintiff. No order as to costs. September 29, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE