Regular Second Appeal No. 2659 of 1988 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2659 of 1988 Date of decision: May 18, 2010 State of Punjab ...Appellant Versus Natha Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the appellant. None for the respondent. RANJIT SINGH J. On 04.05.2010, this case was adjourned to enable the State counsel to have instructions if the respondent-plaintiff was alive or not as it was stated by the counsel for the respondent that he is no more. The counsel was also directed to ascertain if the respondent- plaintiff was allowed to join duties in terms of the impugned order. The State counsel on instructions submits that the respondent-plaintiff was not taken back in service as operation of the judgment was stayed by this Court. The respondent-plaintiff is no more alive and no efforts have been made to substitute his LRs. In view of the provisions of the CPC, the appeal may not abate despite death of respondent. Accordingly, the appeal is being considered and decided on merit. There were four allegations made against the Regular Second Appeal No. 2659 of 1988 2 respondent-plaintiff, who was serving as Patwari and these were as under:- a) That you were posted at village Mehta you remained absent from your circle from 20.1.1979 to 24.1.1979 upto 4.30 P.M. without any leave; b) That you put off Santokh Singh son of Chanan Singh of village Mehta from supplying the copy of the khasra girdwari for kharif, 1978 and that you also flouted the orders of the Naib Tehsildar; c) That when the Naib Tehsildar made confidential report against you regarding one mutation, then you tried to put political pressure upon him; d) That you wrongly and intentionally entered mutation No. 4801 illegally and got it sanctioned secretly from the Revenue Officer and you kept concealed the order of the Assistant Collector Grade 2nd from Santokh Singh son of Chanan Singh so that he may not file any appeal. On the basis of inquiry held, the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed from service, which he impugned by filing the civil suit. The civil suit was dismissed by the trial Court against which he filed an appeal, which was allowed. The First Appellate Court, on the basis of finding given by the inquiry officer came to take a view that none of the charges alleged against the respondent-plaintiff stood proved on the basis of evidence and held that it was a case of no evidence. Concededly, the first charge regarding the absence, Regular Second Appeal No. 2659 of 1988 3 which was for a period of 4 days, was not established as per the finding given by the inquiry officer. The submission made by the State counsel that the charge was partially proved as it was found in the inquiry that the Patwari was not found present at the time of attestation on 24.01.1979 would not mean that he was proved to be absent from 20.01.1979 to 23.01.1979. The second charge regarding putting off Santokh Singh for supplying of copy of khasra girdawari also was not found to be established on the basis of evidence given by Santokh Singh, who appeared before the inquiry officer to state that when he went to take the khasra girdawari he did not find the respondent- plaintiff present. The allegation of being put off thus is not established though it was stated by Santokh Singh that earlier the respondent-plaintiff had supplied the copy of khasra girdawari to him. The allegation that the respondent-plaintiff had put political pressure on Naib Tehsilar when he made report against him, also was not proved as it was not so stated by Hemraj. Accordingly, it was also found to be a case of no evidence. Similarly the last charge was also found to be not made out on the basis of evidence that was led. State has not so far placed before me substantial question of law that would arise in this case. The counsel now hands over the substantial question of law, which according to her would arise in this case. The following substantial questions of law have been formulated in this case:- 1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.06.1988 passed by Addl. Distt. Judge, Amritsar is Regular Second Appeal No. 2659 of 1988 4 sustainable in the eyes of law? 2. Whether the findings given by the Ld. Trial Court are based on sufficient evidence? 3. Whether the finding given by the Ld. Trial Court on issues No. 1 to 3 are reversed by the Ld. Addl. Distt. Judge, Amritsar as per law? 4. Whether the findings given by the enquiry officer are not based on the evidence? The State counsel has not been able to point out anything to find fault with the view expressed by the First Appellate Court that it is a case of no evidence. No interference in the impugned order thus is called for. The Regular Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. May 18, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE