Regular Second Appeal No. 2702 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2702 of 2008 Date of Order: 26.09.2008 State of Haryana and others ...Appellants Versus Amar Singh ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana for the appellants. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The State of Haryana, challenges judgments and decrees passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, dated 03.10.2007 and the Additional District Judge, Karnal, dated 23.01.2008, decreeing the suit of the respondent and dismissing their appeal, respectively. The plaintiff-respondent, while working as a Forest Guard was compulsorily retired from service on 10.07.1998. He was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 7 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules for the shortage of 424 trees. Eventually a recovery of Rs.3,24,025/- was ordered. The plaintiff-respondent, filed a suit, challenging the enquiry proceedings as also the order of punishment. The learned trial Court, found as a matter of fact that the enquiry, though exparte was conducted in gross violation of the provisions of Rule 7 and consequently decreed the suit and quashed the order of punishment. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the first appellate Court on 23.01.2008. Counsel for the appellants submits that as the respondent was Regular Second Appeal No. 2702 of 2008 -2- proceeded against ex-parte. The Enquiry Officer rightly held him guilty and the punishing authority thereafter was justified in directing recovery of Rs.3,24,025/-. It is submitted that minor infraction in the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer, should have been overlooked by the courts below and, therefore, the enquiry and the order of punishment should have been upheld. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. As held by the courts below, though the respondent was proceeded against ex-parte, the enquiry office proceeded without recording any evidence, summoning any witness in support of the documents appended with the charge-sheet, and without recording any reasons, submitted his report. In order to place the above conclusions in their correct perspective, a relevant extract from the judgment of the first appellate Court would be appropriate:- “18. A combined reading of the statement of PW1 and DW2 would make it crystal clear that while conducting the enquiry against the respondent under Rule 7, no witness as mentioned in the list of witnesses appended with the charge sheet examined not the prosecutor Karam Chand, who was supposed to produce the documents, was called upon to produce the same. The enquiry report Ex.D13 is silent as to which document was relied upon and who proved the same to be genuine and authenticated as rightly observed by the learned lower court, even if the respondent was proceeded against ex-parte, it never mean that the formal proof of the document was to be dispensed with. There is a settled proposition of law that the procedure established by Rule 7 cannot be curtailed in any manner, either the delinquent was Regular Second Appeal No. 2702 of 2008 -3- contesting the charges of he was ex-parte. 19. After concluding that the established procedure as contemplated under Rule 7 was not followed, the contention of learned Govt. Pleader for the appellants that since the order passed was covered under the category of minor penalties, there was no requirement to adopt the complete procedure as contemplated under Rule 7. This contention of learned Govt. Pleader for the appellants is unable to cut much ice in view of the settled proposition of law and the observations made in the case law titled as Dr.K.G.Tiwari v. State of Haryana 2003 (1) Labour and Services Judicial Reports, page 229 (P&H). It is an Full Bench authoritative pronouncement of our Hon’ble High Court and according to this, once a charge sheet has been issued under Rule 7 of the imposition of a major penalty, the disciplinary authority cannot inflict even a minor punishment without holding a complete departmental enquiry.” It is, therefore, apparent from the the above extract that the enquiry was conducted in flagrant violation of the rules. The learned courts below, therefore, had no option but to conclude that the enquiry as also the order of punishment were void. Concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below do not suffer from any error as would give rise to a substantial question of law. No merit, dismissed. September 26, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE