R.S.A. No. 3544 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3544 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.02.2009 Kartar Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. K.S. Hissowal, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) C.M. No. 10567-C of 2008 (O&M) This is an application under Section 151 CPC for condoning the delay of 25 days in refiling the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 25 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. C.M. allowed. R.S.A. No. 3544 of 2008 This regular second appeal has been filed against the judgments and decree dated 27.8.2001 and 15.1.2003 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration to challenge the order dated 4.2.1997 dismissing the R.S.A. No. 3544 of 2008 (O&M) -2- plaintiff/appellant from service, has been ordered to be dismissed. The plainitff/appellant by way of suit also challenged the appellate order as well as the order passed on mercy petition. The plainitf was appointed as Constable, and placed under suspension on 7.7.1994. The allegation against the appellant was very serious vide which he was chargesheeted, and inquiry held. The Inquiry Officer held the appellant guilty of the charges framed. The appointing authority accepted the inquiry report, and after issuing show cause notice, dismissed the appellant from service. The appellant/plaintiff challenged the dismissal on the plea that the allegations before the Inquiry Officer were not proved for want of sufficient evidence, as the lady alleged to have been raped by the appellant was not produced before the Inquiry Officer. The learned Courts below were right to hold that the Civil Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by Inquiry Officer in the departmental proceedings. No irregularity in conduct of the inquiry was pointed out. The learned Courts dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be sustained, as no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant, before imposing penalty. The contention raised by the appellant cannot be sustained in view of the evidence led before the learned Courts, and concurrent findings. The appeal raises no substantial question of law for consideration by this Court. R.S.A. No. 3544 of 2008 (O&M) -3- It may also be noticed here that this appeal is barred by 1757 days. The only plea taken is that the appellant suffered from disease of backbone and was bed ridden. No proof in support of this plea has been placed on record. No ground for condoning the delay of 1757 days is made out. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed. The appeal is dismissed as time barred, as also on merits. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge February 02, 2009 R.S.