In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.1881 of 1988 ..... Date of decision:14.9.2011 Iqbal Singh .....Appellant v. Punjab State through Collector Amritsar .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? ...... Present: None for the appellant. None for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This regular second appeal has been filed by plaintiff-Iqbal Singh against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide which the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed. Brief facts of this case are that the plaintiff (appellant herein) was working as a Driver in Punjab Roadways at Tarn Taran. During the course of his employment, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against R.S.A. No.1881 of 1988 [2] him and vide orders dated 17.3.1983 and 11.2.1985 his one and three annual increments respectively were stopped with cumulative effect. The case of the appellant is that neither he received any of these impugned orders nor he was intimated about the penalty imposed upon him till the filing of the suit. The appellant did not know about the background of the order dated 17.3.1983, however, the order dated 11.2.1985 was passed after placing him under suspension without calling for any explanation. The charge-sheet served upon him was wrong and defective. It is his case that before issuing the charge-sheet, no open and judicial mind was applied. The allegations contained in charge-sheet were false and frivolous. The appellant submitted his reply but the same was not taken into consideration. It is submitted that subsequent departmental inquiry was totally in contravention of relevant rules and the principles of natural justice. He was not given any opportunity to defend his case properly. The conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Officer were contrary to the facts and circumstances, unwarranted and not justified. There was not an iota of evidence and inquiry report was based on conjectures and surmises. It is alleged that a cyclostyled show cause notice dated 27.12.1984 was served upon him without considering the merits of the case and without application of mind. The appellant submitted his reply but no further intimation was given to him and the impugned order dated 11.2.1985 was passed. On these grounds, the appellant filed civil suit for declaration that these two orders were illegal and ultra vires etc. and null and void and not binding on the appellant and he is entitled to all the arrears of increments with other benefits admissible from time to time. The suit of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant- R.S.A. No.1881 of 1988 [3] respondent by raising preliminary objections and asserted that these orders were passed validly and according to law. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed as many as seven issues, however, the main issue whether the above impugned orders dated 17.3.1983 and 11.2.1985 were illegal, null and void was partly decided in favour of the plaintiff and partly in favour of the respondent. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff in respect of order dated 17.3.1983 to be defective but upheld the order dated 11.2.1985. Vide order dated 17.3.1983, one increment of the appellant with cumulative effect was stopped. The allegation against the appellant was that he had not stopped the bus despite the signal of traffic Inspector for checking. The appellant submitted his reply to the show cause notice and the following order was passed: “Considered. His reply is not fully satisfactory. Punishment of stopping one annual increment be awarded.” On the basis of this order, final order dated 17.3.1983 was passed on a cyclostyled proforma stopping one increment with cumulative effect on his proving guilty. On appreciating the evidence and material produced before the trial Court, it came to the conclusion that this order is not tenable in the eyes of law. As it is against the provisions of law and principles of natural justice and set aside the same. In respect of the order dated 11.2.1985, the allegation against the appellant was that he crossed the main gate of the Workshop on 29.4.1984 at about 11.30 p.m. under the influence of liquor. The appellant did not obey the directions of the Chowkidar to remain outside the premises. Hence, he had violated the discipline of the department. After appreciating R.S.A. No.1881 of 1988 [4] the evidence and material on record, the trial Court upheld the order dated 11.2.1985 by holding that the Inquiry Officer is not obliged to record a detailed judgment like an order of civil Court. It was held that proper procedure was adopted and after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant, the impugned order was passed. The appellant's plea that no assistance was provided to him and he could not get the help of a co- worker to defend himself was rejected on the ground that as he was not a Class IV employee and totally illiterate and could not be prejudiced merely by the fact that the punishing authority or the Inquiry Officer did not offer the help of a co-worker without his asking for it. It was held that even if any provision of Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services Punishment and Appeal Rules had been violated at the time of conducting inquiry, the appellant had to allege and prove as to what prejudice was caused to him due to the non-compliance of that provision. The violation if at all any is not fatal unless it has resulted in some prejudice to the plaintiff in the present case. As he neither alleged, nor proved any prejudice that has been caused to him during the inquiry proceedings, the trial Court has not to sit as a Court of appeal to appreciate the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Therefore, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the inquiry proceedings were legal and the impugned order dated 11.2.1985 was sustainable in the eyes of law and dismissed the suit of the appellant- plaintiff in respect of that order. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and upheld the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. No one has appeared on behalf of the parties. I have perused R.S.A. No.1881 of 1988 [5] the records of the case very carefully. After perusing the impugned judgments and records of the case, I do not find any ground which may warrant interference in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. It could not be found that such findings are based on misreading of evidence or that material evidence has not been taken into consideration. The case of the plaintiff-appellant before the Courts below was that the impugned order passed against the appellant was not only against the principles of natural justice but was also in total contravention of the Punjab Civil Services Punishment and Appeal Rules which were applicable to him. He has submitted that he was prejudiced on account of non providing of assistance of co-worker in the departmental inquiry which has been fully dealt by both the Courts below and came to the conclusion that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant. Once, the appellant cannot point out any error in appreciating the evidence and could not prove any prejudice to have been caused to him of not providing the assistance of co-worker to defend him, the appeal filed by him is without merit. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. September 14, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*