RSA No.3672 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** RSA No.3672 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION:09.07.2010 **** Vaish Technical Institute, Rohtak through its Principal . . . . Appellant VS. Dharambir Sharma and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: - Mr.Dinesh Arora, Advocate for the appellant. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) Defendants No.3 and 4 are in second appeal against the judgment and decree of both the courts below whereby suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff has been decreed. Shorn of unnecessary details, the Trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 18.12.2007, which was challenged by defendants No.1 and 2 by way of Civil Appeal No.23 of 2008 and defendants No.3 and 4 by way of Civil Appeal No.160 of 2008. Both the appeals were dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 12.3.2009. Defendants No.1 and 2 had preferred Regular Second Appeal No.2931 of 2009 titled as “Director, Technical Education, Haryana and another Versus Dharambir Sharma” arising out RSA No.3672 of 2009 -2- of Civil Appeal No.23 of 2008. The said appeal has been dismissed by this Court on 7.8.2009 by passing the following order: “Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby suit of the plaintiff for declaration with the consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from effecting any recovery from the plaintiff, was decreed. The grievance of the plaintiff is that an order of recovery from his salary has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to him though his pay was rightly fixed by the Management, after taking into consideration the service rendered by him on an unaided post. The learned trial Court decreed the suit primarily on the ground that the order of recovery has been passed by the Management without giving any opportunity of hearing. The learned trial Court also took into consideration the admission of DW1- D.K.Jain, Lecturer, VTI, Rohtak, that similar benefit granted to the other employees has not been recovered. Such decree was affirmed in appeal as well. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the order of recovery was passed by the Management (defendant No.4) and that the appellants, who are only to reimburse 95% of the recurring expenditure against the un- aided post, therefore, the appellants cannot RSA No.3672 of 2009 -3- be restrained from recovering the aforesaid amount. The aforesaid issue is not subject matter of the controversy in the present proceedings. If it is permissible for the defendant-appellants to proceed against the Management -defendant No.4, it is open to the appellant- defendant Nos. 1and 2 to take action against defendant No.4 in accordance with law. Once the impugned order has been set aside on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not granted to the plaintiff, it goes without saying that the defendants have a right to comply with the principles of natural justice before effecting any recovery from the plaintiff-respondent. All the questions inter- set between the parties can be adjudicated upon after an opportunity of hearing is granted to the plaintiff in accordance with law. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded or that the finding recorded gives rise to any substantial question of law in the present second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.” The present appeal has been filed by defendants No.3 and 4 against the decree passed in Civil Appeal No.160 of 2008. Since, both the appeals bearing Nos.160 of 2008 and 23 of 2008 were dismissed by common judgment and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court, therefore, no view can be taken contrary to the view taken by this Court RSA No.3672 of 2009 -4- in RSA No.2931 of 2009 titled as “Director, Technical Education, Haryana and another Versus Dharambir Sharma”. Hence, the present appeal is also dismissed in terms of the order passed in the abovesaid appeal. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 09.07.2010 JUDGE Vivek