Regular Second Appeal No.1081 of 1986. -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No.1081of 1986. Date of decision:11.2.2008. The Punjab State and another. ...Appellants. Versus Bodh Raj. ...Respondent. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. Yatender Sharma, DAG Punjab for the appellants. Mr. J. C Verma, Senior Advocate with Ms.Meenakshi Verma Advocate for the respondent. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. This Regular Second Appeal has been directed by the State of Punjab and another against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1985 passed by Shri Amrit Lal Bahri, the then District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.1984 delivered by Shri Dalip Singh,the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Pathankot was accepted by setting aside the later judgment. The case of the plaintiff was that he was working as a Regular Second Appeal No.1081 of 1986. -2- Conductor with the Punjab Roadways, Pathankot and his services were terminated vide order dated 27.4.1983. It was submitted that the enquiry conducted by the department is not in accordance with the rules. No document on the basis of which charge sheet was framed was disclosed to the plaintiff. The Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry as per rules. The plaintiff was not allowed to have the assistance of a co-worker or the legal practitioner. The defendants filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the Court had no jurisdiction. On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff was a Conductor and his services have been terminated after legal and valid enquiry. The learned trial Court framed the following issues;- 1.Whether the impugned order is illegal, null and void , against the service rules and principles of natural justice as alleged? 2.Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try this suit?OPD. 3.Relief. The learned trial Court returned finding on issue No.1 against the plaintiff. However, issue No.2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. In view of findings on issue No.1, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.1984. Feeling dis-satisfied with the above-said judgment and Regular Second Appeal No.1081 of 1986. -3- decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal and that was decided by Shri Amrit Lal Bahri, the then District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.1985. The finding on issue No.1 was reversed and consequently the appeal was accepted. It was held that it was a case of no evidence and the enquiry was not in accordance with the rules. Feeling aggrieved with the above-said judgment and decree dated 24.12.1985, this Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the State of Punjab and another. The following question of law is formulated:- “Whether the first Appellate Court has committed material irregularity by reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court”. Shri Yatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has submitted that the Civil Court is not the Appellate Court and the first Appellate Court was not right in holding that proper enquiry has not been conducted. He has supported the judgment of the first Appellate Court. I have heard arguments of counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The first Appellate Court has given a definite finding that the enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with the rules. That being a finding of fact cannot be interfered with in the Regular Second Appeal. From the perusal of the judgment of the first Appellate Court, Regular Second Appeal No.1081 of 1986. -4- the learned State counsel could not bring out any material from which it could be concluded that the first Appellate Court has committed any irregularity. The question of law formulated above stands answered against the appellants. In the light of above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and consequently stands dismissed with no order as to costs. February 11,2008. (K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge