R.S.A.No.2610 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.2610 of 2007 Date of Decision : 10.8.2009 H.D.Gambhir ...Appellant Versus General manager/Project, Irrigation Department, ...Respondents Haryana, Chandigarh and others CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Rohit Ahuja, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl. AG, Haryana. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court, whereby his suit for declaration challenging the recovery of Rs.1,07,250/- out of Rs.2,81,291/- vide letter dated 11.2.2000, was dismissed. The plaintiff, who was working as Junior Engineer attained the age of superannuation on 29.2.1996. The plaintiff was charge-sheeted on 15.1.1988 under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. In such enquiry proceedings, an order dated 20.7.1995, Ex.D-1 was passed in respect of recovery of Rs.2,81,291.88. A sum of Rs.1,07,250/- being gratuity amount was withheld at the time of retirement, which was challenged by the plaintiff in the present suit. The learned first Appellate Court found that the plaintiff has not participated in the enquiry proceedings, which is evident from the R.S.A.No.2610 of 2007 2 order Ex.D-1, wherein he has sought time to attend enquiry on the date fixed being sick. It was also found that the plaintiff has not filed any appeal against the order of punishment, though he has admitted in the cross-examination that he had the intimation about the order. It was also found that the plaintiff has not furnished any reply to the charge-sheet. Thus, the order of punishment of recovery of Rs.2,81,291.88 cannot be said to be unjustified. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the order dated 20.7.1995 Ex.D-1 is a non-speaking order, therefore, the said order is not sustainable. It is also argued that the order of punishment was passed in respect of charge-sheet issued on 8.3.1988 after gross delay and latches, therefore, the punishment order is not sustainable. Reliance is placed upon State of M.P. Vs. Bani Singh and another 1990 A.I.R. (SC) 1308. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant at some length, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. In the order Ex.D-1, detailed reference has been made to various communications addressed to the plaintiff for attending the enquiry proceedings. It also records that the reply has not been filed. The reference has been made to a telegram sent by the plaintiff and received on 20.10.1993, which is to the effect that he is sick and unable to attend the hearing. Since no reply was received from the appellant, the charges levelled against him, were found to be proved and order of punishment was passed. It is well-settled that the Civil Court does not act as a Court of appeal with the findings recorded by the Punishing Authority. Since, no R.S.A.No.2610 of 2007 3 reply was filed on behalf of the plaintiff, the charges levelled against him were found to be proved. The recovery of loss suffered by the Department is a minor punishment, therefore, nothing more than show- cause was required to be served upon the plaintiff. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has not shown any prejudice in view of the order passed as he has never participated in the enquiry proceedings. As far as the argument that the order of punishment has been passed after delay and latches is again misconceived. Though the charge- sheet was served upon the plaintiff in the year 1988, but it was the constant delay tactics adopted by the plaintiff, which led to delay in passing of the order of minor punishment. Even otherwise, the judgment in Bani Singh's case (supra) has been explained in State of Punjab Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal (1995) 2 SCC 570 and B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 484. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned first Appellate Court, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court. Dismissed. 10.08.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE