R. S. A. No. 2022 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2022 of 2011 Date of Decision : May 09, 2011 The State of Haryana and others .... Appellants Vs. Brij Bhushan .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Amit Goyal, AAG, Haryana for the appellants. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is second appeal by defendants, who were successful in the trial court, but have been unsuccessful in the lower appellate court. Respondent-plaintiff Brij Bhushan filed suit against the appellants as defendants. The plaintiff has since retired from service of the defendants as Sub Inspector of Police on 11.10.2005. While he was in service, departmental inquiry was initiated against him vide order dated 13.01.2003, on the complaint of Station House Officer (SHO), vide report dated 02.12.2002. The Inquiry Officer exonerated the plaintiff of the charges against him. However, defendant no.4 – Superintendent of Police R. S. A. No. 2022 of 2011 2 (punishing authority) disagreed with the report of the Inquiry Officer by recording disagreement note and thereby holding the plaintiff guilty of the charges and issued him Show Cause Notice. Ultimately, vide order dated 10.06.2003, defendant no.4 ordered stoppage of two annual increments of the plaintiff with cumulative effect. Departmental appeal, preferred by the plaintiff against the said order, has been dismissed by defendant no.3 vide order dated 06.12.2005. The plaintiff in the suit has challenged the aforesaid orders dated 10.06.2003 and 06.12.2005 alleging the same to be illegal, null and void etc. The plaintiff also sought consequential relief. Defendants contested the suit. While admitting the factual position leading to the punishment, it was pleaded that the plaintiff did not take interest in official work during Sadbhawna Operation. Consequently, on the complaint of SHO, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The impugned punishment order and appellate order are legal and valid. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, vide judgment and decree dated 31.05.2010, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Rohtak, vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2010, and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiff has been decreed. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the R. S. A. No. 2022 of 2011 3 case file. It has come on record that during inquiry, both material witnesses examined by the department in support of the charge-sheet against the plaintiff, resiled and did not support the charge-sheet. Concerned SHO Jai Parkash, on whose complaint the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the plaintiff, while appearing as witness in the inquiry, admitted that plaintiff had registered a case and obeyed all his (SHO's) orders during Sadbhawna Operation. However, the plaintiff did not apprehend any Proclaimed Offender during the said Operation, whereas plaintiff's remaining work was all right. The witness also admitted that plaintiff had challaned 17 vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act during Sadbhawna Operation. Similarly, the other witness Gurbachan Singh Saini, Deputy Superintendent of Police, while appearing in the inquiry stated that he was supervisory officer of the plaintiff and during his tenure, work of the plaintiff was satisfactory and he had obeyed all his orders and no complaint had been received against the plaintiff. In view of this evidence, the Inquiry Officer held that charges against the plaintiff were not proved. Defendant no.4 – punishing authority disagreed with the Inquiry Report on the ground that both the aforesaid witnesses had been won over by the plaintiff. However, on this ground, the plaintiff could not be held guilty of the charges in the absence of any evidence. When both material witnesses of the department resiled during inquiry, the plaintiff R. S. A. No. 2022 of 2011 4 could not be held guilty of the charges by the punishing authority by recording disagreement note. It would be a case of `no evidence'. When an employee is held guilty of charges in departmental inquiry on the basis of `no evidence', Civil Court does have jurisdiction to interfere with any such finding. It is not only within the power of the Civil Court, but also it is the duty of the Civil Court to interfere with such finding which is based on `no evidence'. Consequently, in the instant case, lower appellate court has rightly held the impugned punishment order and appellate order to be null and void being based on `no evidence'. For the reasons aforesaid, finding recorded by the lower appellate court in favour of plaintiff does not call for interference as the said finding is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. The appeal lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. May 09, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE