R. S. A. No. 2513 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2513 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : June 01, 2011 Roop Singh .... Appellant Vs. State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiff Roop Singh, who was successful in the trial court, but has been non-suited by the lower appellate court, has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff-appellant was working as Store Keeper in District Jail, Bathinda. He retired on 30.11.1999. After his retirement, he was served with charge-sheet on 07.08.2000, for major penalty. Regular departmental inquiry was held into the charge-sheet. Plaintiff submitted his reply challenging the finding of the Inquiry Officer. Defendant no.1 passed impugned punishment order dated 02.04.2004 ordering recovery of R. S. A. No. 2513 of 2011 (O&M) 2 Rs.85,200/- from the plaintiff. In the suit, the plaintiff appellant challenged the aforesaid punishment order being illegal and null and void. Defendants inter alia pleaded that on 10.09.1999, on checking of the Store, of which plaintiff was Store Keeper, shortage of 48 wooden doors and 8 windows was found in the Store. Accordingly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated culminating in the impugned punishment order. Shortage of 40 doors amounting to Rs.85,200/- was held proved and accordingly, impugned punishment order for recovery of the said amount was rightly passed against the plaintiff. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bathinda, vide judgment and decree dated 20.02.2009, decreed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by defendants has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, vide judgment and decree dated 14.03.2011 and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the premise that no disciplinary proceeding could be initiated against the plaintiff after his retirement. However, this approach of the trial court has been rightly held to be illegal by the lower appellate court. Rule 2.2 (b) of the Punjab Civil R. S. A. No. 2513 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Services Rules Volume-II specifically stipulates that disciplinary proceedings can be initiated even after retirement of an employee, provided that the incident, for which the proceedings are initiated, is not more than four years old. In the instant case, the shortage of material was detected on 10.09.1999 and charge-sheet was issued on 07.08.2000 and thus, the event was not more than four years old, when the disciplinary proceedings were initiated. It is thus manifest that disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff were legally initiated. Plaintiff was afforded opportunity of hearing at every stage. The impugned punishment order is thus not vitiated in any manner. Counsel for the appellant contended that objections filed by the plaintiff against the inquiry report have not been duly considered by the punishing authority. The contention cannot be accepted because the punishing authority is not supposed to pass a very detailed order regarding the said objections. On the contrary, the said objections were considered by the Principal Secretary to the Government in the light of the comments sent by Director General of Prisons and the charge was held proved. Consequently, it cannot be said that the impugned order is non-speaking or has not considered the objections filed by the plaintiff against the inquiry report. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the impugned punishment order was rightly passed against the plaintiff after complying with the R. S. A. No. 2513 of 2011 (O&M) 4 principles of natural justice. The said order does not suffer from any infirmity. Consequently, suit of the plaintiff has been rightly dismissed by the lower appellate court. Judgment of the lower appellate court does not suffer from any illegality or perversity nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence so as to call for interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. The appeal lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. If a request is made by the plaintiff to the defendants for recovery of the impugned amount in installments, the defendants shall consider the same sympathetically in accordance with law. June 01, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE