RSA No.3169 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3169 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 03 2009 Punjab State and Others ...........Appellants Versus Sawinder Singh ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Sawinder Singh filed a suit for declaration. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 21.7.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge,Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 30.3.2009. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. The facts of the case, as noticed by the Additional District Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, read as under:- “ 2. In nut shell, the case of the plaintiff is that he was appointed as Warden and posted at Central Jail, Amritsar, on 9.10.1992 and during his service, his work and conduct remained satisfactory, but on 11.4.1994, he was involved in false criminal case u/secs.107/151 Cr.P.C. and was acquitted by the Court of RSA No.3169 of 2009(O&M) 2 Executive Magistrate, Amritsar and,thereafter, he joined the duties in May,1994, but the department did not release his salary for the months of April and May,1994. On 16.9.1996, he was again placed under suspension on the allegations that he was found keeping in his possession capsules while on duty and,thereafter, departmental proceedings were initiated and, ultimately, he was acquitted by the Inquiry Officer on 29.8.1997 but despite that the department has not released his salary. Notice u/sec.80 CPC was served upon the defendants, but of no avail and,ultimately, the suit was filed. 3.On notice, written statement was filed by the defendants taking preliminary objections regarding cause of action, legality of the notice u/s 80 CPC and concealment of facts. On merits, the appointment of plaintiff was admitted. However, it was submitted that he was found on 7.4.1994 entering the residence of Jail Superintendent under influence of liquor and quarrelled with the Sentry. Thereafter, he absented willfully from duty till 3.6.1994 and was charge-sheeted under Rule 8 of Pb.Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules and Inquiry was initiated,wherein, punishment was inflicted to stop one increment without future effect. Then, he was placed under suspension on 16.9.1996, as he was found keeping in his possession Sodinol Capsules and Inquiry was conducted, but Inquiry Officer on 21.8.1997 obtained an application, on the basis of which, he passed order on 29.8.1997 warning the plaintiff and treating the period of suspension as leave of kind due. Finally, it was RSA No.3169 of 2009(O&M) 3 submitted that the suit be dismissed. Separate written statement was also filed by defendant No.4 on similar grounds.” On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 4. What is the effect of the notice u/sec. 80 CPC?OPD 5.Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that he was entitled for the salary of the suspension period. Admittedly, plaintiff was working as a Warden with the defendants. Undisputedly, he was placed under suspension on 16.9.1996. A charge-sheet was issued to the plaintiff and a departmental inquiry was held against him by K.D.Sharma, Deputy Superintendent, Security Jail Amritsar. Vide order dated 29.8.1997, a warning was issued to the plaintiff. The suspension period of the plaintiff was ordered to be treated as leave of the kind due. The case of the defendants was that the said inquiry report was not accepted by them and a fresh inquiry had been ordered but no such evidence was led in this regard. There was also no documentary evidence on record that the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 29.8.1997 had been set aside by the Appellate RSA No.3169 of 2009(O&M) 4 Authority. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly held that since the plaintiff had been warned and his period of suspension was ordered to be leave of kind due, then he was entitled to release of his salary during the period of suspension in accordance with law. 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 December 03, 2009 arya