RSA No.1491 of 1993 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.1491 of 1993 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19 th May, 2011 Jagan Nath ….Appellant Versus State of Punjab & another ….Respondents CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL PRESENT: Mr. Dharampal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab, for respondents. * * * * * L. N. Mittal, J. (Oral) CM No.6829-C of 2010 The application is allowed and Annexure P-1 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. CM No.6830-C of 2010 This is application for disposing of the appeal in terms of judgment Annexure P-1. The appeal is accordingly taken up for final hearing and disposal. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Main Appeal -1- RSA No.1491 of 1993 (O&M) Plaintiff-Jagan Nath, who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff- appellant was employed as Bus Conductor with defendants/respondents. After chargesheet and regular enquiry, punishing authority passed punishment order dated 13.03.1986, inflicting punishment of reducing the plaintiff to the timescale of pay for five years and forfeiting the remaining pay for the suspension period. In departmental appeal preferred by the plaintiff, order of the punishing authority was modified by the appellate authority vide order dated 24.03.1987, thereby reducing the plaintiff to time scale for three years instead of five years. Both the said orders have been challenged in the suit being illegal and null and void on various grounds. Defendants defended the punishment order and appellate order to be legal and valid. Learned Sub Judge, First Class, Ropar vide judgment and decree dated 13.11.1990 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Ropar vide judgment and decree dated 21.04.1993. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. -2- RSA No.1491 of 1993 (O&M) Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that in view of Rule 5(v) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, the punishing authority was required to specify in the punishment order as to whether on expiry of the period of punishment, the plaintiff would stand restored to the original scale and would be entitled to increments or not and since it was not done, the impugned punishment order and appellate order are bad in law. It was also contended that separate show-cause notice was not given regarding suspension period and, therefore, the punishment order forfeiting the remaining pay for the suspension period (except subsistence allowance) is also bad. Reliance in support of these contentions has been placed on judgment of this court in the case of State of Punjab Versus Mohan Singh, 2007 (4) RSJ 203. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents contended that the impugned punishment order specified the reduction to time scale for five years as modified to three years by the appellate authority and, therefore, the impugned orders are not bad. It was also contended that show-cause notice was given to the plaintiff for seeking his explanation for imposition of punishment and also for treating the suspension period and, therefore, order of forfeiting pay for the suspension period except subsistence amount is also not bad. -3- RSA No.1491 of 1993 (O&M) I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The impugned punishment order regarding reduction to time scale for five years as modified to three years by the appellate authority cannot be said to be null and void in toto, merely because it did not specify as to what would happen after expiry of the said period of three years. At best, for this omission of the punishing authority and the appellate authority, the plaintiff may be entitled to consequential benefits of restoration to original pay scale with all benefits on expiry of the period of three years, but for the period of three years, the plaintiff had to be reduced to the minimum time scale as ordered by the punishing authority and modified by the appellate authority. The impugned punishment orders for the said period of three years do not suffer from any vice. The only flaw or infirmity in the said orders is regarding the position in which the plaintiff should be put on completion of three years’ period of punishment. Benefit of this omission can be extended to the plaintiff by granting him all consequential benefits after the expiry of three years’ period. Consequently, the impugned orders are vitiated to this extent only. Finding of the courts below, to the contrary, is perverse and illegal and deserves to be modified to this extent by exercising second appellate jurisdiction because substantial question of law to this effect arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. -4- RSA No.1491 of 1993 (O&M) As regards suspension period, since show-cause notice was given to the plaintiff regarding the same, although it was a composite show-cause notice regarding proposed punishment as well, the principles of natural justice were duly complied with in the instant case and judgment in the case of Mohan Singh (supra) is, therefore, not attracted to this case on this aspect. In the case of Mohan Singh (supra), order regarding suspension period was set aside because principles of natural justice were not complied with in that case. In the instant case, however, principles of natural justice were complied with and, therefore, impugned orders for suspension period are not vitiated in any manner. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant second appeal is allowed partly. Judgments and decrees of both the courts below are set aside. Suit of the plaintiff is decreed partly holding that after the expiry of punishment period of three years, all benefits of the plaintiff shall stand restored and he shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, but for the punishment period of three years, the plaintiff would remain reduced to the time scale as ordered by the punishing authority as modified by the appellate authority. The plaintiff shall not be entitled to anything except subsistence allowance for the suspension period as ordered by the punishing authority and upheld by the appellate authority. -5- RSA No.1491 of 1993 (O&M) (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 19th May, 2011 ‘raj’ -6-