In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A. No. 2043 of 2008 Date of decision: July 16, 2008 Balwant Singh ... Appellant versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. A.N. Jindal, J (Oral) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.4.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Fatehabad accepting the appeal of State of Haryana against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2007 holding that the order dated 16.6.2000 passed by the defendant No.2 and order dated 18.12.2000 passed by the Inspector General of Police Rohtak stopping two increments of the plaintiff are not illegal, null or void. The case of the appellant is that he was employed as Treasury Guard in Treasury Office at Ratia. On the intervening night of 16/17.7.1999, he was posted on duty in PCR-3 at Sheela By-pass, Rohtak. Mr. Subhash Yadav, the then DSP, Head Quarters, Rohtak visited the area and made a complaint to the Superintendent of Police that when he visited the area, he found the appellant along with two other police officials present at Nakabandi and they had stopped two trucks for the purpose of checking and they were extorting money from the drivers of the truck. On the basis of the complaint, charge sheet along with summary of allegations was served upon the appellant. The appellant submitted reply which was not found satisfactory. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Head Quarter was appointed as Inquiry Officer. During the course of inquiry, statements of various witnesses were recorded. He also produced the drivers of the trucks bearing registration No.HR39-3505 and HR46-9797 as witnesses in R.S.A. No. 2043 of 2008 -2- *** defence. However, the Inquiry Officer held the appellant guilty of the charges. Another show cause notice Ex.P10 was served upon him to show cause as to why his services be not terminated. He submitted his reply. However, without considering the said reply, the order dated 16.6.2000 was passed by the Superintendent of Police Rohtak whereby two increments were stopped. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak which was dismissed on 18.12.2000. Revision petition preferred by the respondent before the Director General of Police was also dismissed on 21.11.2001. In the written statement it has been asserted that on the intervening night of 16/17.7.1999 when Subhash Yadav visited Sheela By- pass, he found that the respondent along with other police officials had stopped two trucks near naka and they were extracting money from them. On the basis of the complaint, regular inquiry departmental inquiry was conducted in which the appellant and other police officials were found guilty of the charges levelled against them and subsequently vide order dated 16.6.2000 two increments were stopped. It has been further averred that the inquiry was held in accordance with law and principles of natural justice. The appeal as well as the revision preferred by the appellant were also dismissed. It has been further pleaded that the orders are perfectly valid and in accordance with law. On the rival contentions of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues. 1. Whether the order bearing memo No.27073-ST dated 16.6.2000 passed by defendant No.2 whereby the plaintiff has been awarded punishment of stoppage of two annual increments and the order vide memo No.22388-A-5 dated 18.12.2000 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak on the appeal of the plaintiff, whereby the appeal of the plaintiff has been dismissed and the order bearing Memo No.23959/E (ii)-2 dated R.S.A. No. 2043 of 2008 -3- *** 21.11.2001 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Administrator Haryana whereby the revision of the plaintiff has been rejected are wrong, against law, without providing any opportunity of hearing are null and void and are liable to be set aside? OPP 2. If issue No.1 stands proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties? OPD 7. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit?OPD 8. Relief. Both the parties led evidence. Ultimately, the trial court vide judgment dated 27.11.2007 decreed the suit. However, the Appellate Court while accepting the appeal set aside the trial court judgment and dismissed the suit. The case is being decided at the motion stage. On perusal of the record it transpires that the trial court was not right in its approach to sit over the inquiry and had substituted its own findings against the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer. Thus, approach of the trial court was illegal. Similar question of law arose in case Y.D. Sarabhai vs. Union of India and another, 2006 (3) RSJ 386, wherein the Apex Court observed as under :- “This Court has repeatedly held that the factual finding of the Disciplinary Authority is holding a detailed enquiry and after R.S.A. No. 2043 of 2008 -4- *** going through elaborate evidence are not assailable in the courts unless the breach of principles of natural justice or the violation of any rules or any material irregularity on the face of record is alleged and shown. However, in this case the High Court in the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has again gone into all aspects of the enquiry in detail and has come to the same factual finding as the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority . Such concurrent findings by three different Authorities including the High Court should not be disturbed by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, have no other option except to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.” While examining the impugned judgment it transpires that the finding of enquiry are detailed one and based on evidence. Principles of natural justice do not seem to be violated. It is settled that the Court should not sit over the findings of enquiry but it could proceed to arrest any illegality or defect in the procedure or at the most could examine whether the punishment was exhaustive and did not commensurate the wrong committed by the delinquent. The proper procedure has been followed while awarding the punishment by the punishing authority. Thus, finding no merit in the appeal the same is hereby dismissed. July 16, 2008 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge