RSA No. 2628 of 2008 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2628 of 2008 Date of Decision : 2.2.2009 Bimal Kumar Patwari Halwa Dumewal .......... Appellant Versus The State of Punjab & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R.L. Gupta, Addl. A.G. Punjab for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 22.11.2005 and 26.11.2007 passed by the learned Courts below dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff filed a suit to challenge the order dated 17.6.2003 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab as also order dated 10.12.2003 passed on the review application moved by the plaintiff- appellant. The plaintiff-appellant is an employee of the Revenue Department, Punjab, who was charge-sheeted for serious misconduct. The RSA No. 2628 of 2008 -2- Enquiry Officer found the charges against the plaintiff to be proved and consequently the appointing authority i.e. the Collector ordered dismissal of the plaintiff-appellant from service on 13.7.2002. The plaintiff-appellant preferred a statutory appeal under the Rules against the order of his punishment before the Divisional Commissioner. The appeal was accepted and order of dismissal was ordered to be set aside with all consequential benefits. Though there was no provision of appeal against the order of appellate Authority the respondent- State chose to challenge the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 10.9.2004 before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The order of the Commissioner was set aside and the plaintiff was awarded a major punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect. Though, there is no provision of filing review before the Financial Commissioner the plaintiff chose to file a review before the Financial Commissioner against the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab on an appeal filed by the State. The review was dismissed. The plaintiff challenged the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner on appeal as well as on review primarily on the plea that impugned orders are without jurisdiction and,therefore, not sustainable in law. The learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant holding that the Financial Commissioner being higher authority was competent to entertain an appeal against the order passed by the subordinate. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the RSA No. 2628 of 2008 -3- following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal for consideration by this Court :- 1. Whether Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal ) Rules, 1970 provide for the filing of an appeal against an order passed by a designated Appellate Authority ? 2. Whether the Financial Commissioner (Revenue ) has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an order passed by an Appellate Authority ? 3. Whether the Courts below were right in holding that the Financial Commissioner (Revenue) is empowered to entertain the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority ? The questions of law as raised stand answered in favour of the appellant by this Court in RSA No. 606 of 2008 titled Sarabjit Singh Vs. The State of Punjab & others decided on 23.9.2008. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Sarabjit Singh Vs. The State of Punjab & others case (supra) the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant and this appeal is allowed. The judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below are set aside, and the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant stands decreed but with no order as to costs. 2.2.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE