Regular Second Appeal No.3552 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3552 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 30, 2009 Shiv Lal Sharma ...........Appellant Versus Commissioners & Secretary, Forest Department HaryanaChandigarh and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr. Sanjay S.Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants. ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff-Shiv Lal Sharma filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction seeking a decree for declaration that punishment orders are based on illegal inquiry report passed by defendant No.3 on 31.12.1990 and subsequent orders passed by defendants No. 1 and 2 on 28.10.1991 and 24.10.1996 rejecting appeal of the plaintiff. The said suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Palwal vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2004. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Faridabad vide judgment and decree dated 9.3.2007. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. The case of the parties, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras 2 to 6 of its judgment reads as under:- “ 2. Plaintiff was appointed as a Forest Guard in Forest Department on 24.5.1960 and he was retired from Palwal range on Regular Second Appeal No.3552 of 2008 (O&M) 2 9.6.1995. In the year 1989, the plaintiff was posted at Nuh in the capacity of range officer. He worked there from 17.7.1989 to 15.10.1991 and during this period, an allegation was levelled against the plaintiff that he is an accused of embezzlement of Govt. money in collusion with subordinates. The said allegation was communicated to the plaintiff by defendant No.3 under his letter No. 6772 dated 2.2.1990. To enquire into the truthfulness of the said allegation, Shri Subhash Babu IFS was appointed as enquiry Officer vide G.P. South Circle Gurgaon letter No.1 dated 17.4.1999. The said enquiry Officer submitted his report to defendant No.3 against the plaintiff. The enquiry officer submitted his report to defendant No.3 against the plaintiff. It has been further alleged that the enquiry officer exceeded the point of enquiry and did not join relevant and material witnesses in the enquiry, who were conversant with the facts of the case. He even did not inspect the spot where the work of plantation was actually done nor the enquiry officer prepared his report in accordance with prescribed procedure and principle of natural justice. So, the said enquiry report is absolutely wrong and has no legal value and sanctity for any purpose. 3. It has been further alleged that report of the enquiry officer has been relied upon by defendant No.3 in toto and the plaintiff was reverted to the post of Dy.Ranger from the post of Forest Ranger for a period of five years and that recovery of 25% of the alleged loss of Rs.73,500.75 ps was also ordered. It was alleged that the said punishment was imposed by defendant No.3 vide order Regular Second Appeal No.3552 of 2008 (O&M) 3 No.87/CFSC Gurgaon dated 31.12.1990. The said punishment is uncalled for illegal and unconstitutional and imposed by defendant No.3 with a malafide intention to spoil the carrier of the plaintiff and to put him to loss. 4. It has been further alleged that the plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said punishment and the same was rejected. Plaintiff preferred another appeal to the defendant No. 1 but defendant No.1 also turned down the same and thus the plaintiff has exhausted all the departmental channel for redressal of his grievances. It has been alleged that the defendant No.3 levelled allegation in respect of work done in the year 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 whereas the plaintiff took over the charge at Nuh Range on 17.7.1989 and thus the allegation against the plaintiff stands falsified automatically as he was not in service at the said station before 17.7.1989. 5. It is further the case of the plaintiff that in 1988-89 in Kotla Section 5, the entire area of 20 hectare land was taken over by the plaintiff as totally failed and there was no plant in the said area. This fact has been mentioned by the plaintiff in handing-taking report dated 17.7.1989. As such the question of failure of plantation or loss to Govt. does not arise. It is further case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.3 alleges that 3100 pits were reopened for maintenance of plantation in the said area of 20 hactare during 1989-90 whereas on the instructions of DFO Gurgaon, 15700 pits were re-opened and 15000 plaints were planted in the said area. So the allegation of 3100 plants is Regular Second Appeal No.3552 of 2008 (O&M) 4 incorrect as asserted by defendant No.3. The enquiry officer has recommended increase in punishment for which he was not competent to do without fresh show cause notice or without fresh enquiry. Thus, it has been alleged that the orders of defendant No. 1 to 3 dated 28.10.1991, 16.12.1995 read with Order dated 24.10.1996 and the order of punishment issued by defendant No.3 dated 31.12.1990 are illegal and liable to be set aside on the grounds, inter-alia (a) the enquiry was not properly carried out by the enquiry officer on the orders of defendant No.3, the said enquiry officer was appointed without the consent of the plaintiff, (b) Govt. officials Sh.S.S.Sikriwal HFC and Sh.B.S.Raghav HFS had inspected the spot on the direction of defendant No.3 prior to the alleged enquiry and they had submitted their report to the defendant No.3 regarding existing state of affairs in respect of the three places and these officers were not examined by the enquiry officer during the course of enquiry nor the plaintiff was permitted to produce them in defence, © The enquiry officer exceeded the point of refgerence as he was not required to recommend punishment make any addition or alteration in the proposed punishment or to influence the defendant No. 3 in any way to accept his enquiry report for the purposes of inflicting decreased by way of defective calculation, (e) appellate authority i.e. defendants No. 1 and 2 have also wrongly rejected the appeal of the plaintiff, (f) the punishment has been inflicted incorrectly as the plaintiff and even the said loss has been illegally assessed by the defendants, (g) that double punishment i.e. recovery of Regular Second Appeal No.3552 of 2008 (O&M) 5 25% and of revision were uncalled for as an employee cannot be punished twice for one charge as is done in the present case, (h) the defendants exonerated Mohd. Khan Forestor and Ashok Kumar Forest Guard of their liability in the said loss and this the plaintiff also should have been exonerated. The plaintiff made several requests to the defendants for consideration of his grievances but the defendants have turned a deaf ear to his requests. Hence, this suit. 6. The suit was contested by all the respondents by filing written statement. Preliminary objections regarding cause of action, locus-standi, maintainability of the suit, suit being bad for want of advalorem court fees, suit being bad for want of legal and valid notice under Section 80 CPC have been taken. On merits, the allegations of the plaintiff for mis-appropriation of Govt. money were found correct and the enquiry officer, after holding an enquiry had submitted his report to the competent authority wherein the plaintiff was found guilty. It has been alleged that the plaintiff has rightly and legally been awarded the punishment and the plaintiff is liable to make good the loss caused by him to the State Govt. under service rules. It has been further alleged that the plaintiff never visited the spot and failed to maintain the plantation, rather no replacement was got made by him. Rest of the allegations have also been denied and prayer for dismissal of the suit with costs has been made. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- Regular Second Appeal No.3552 of 2008 (O&M) 6 “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed in the prayer clause of the plaint?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form ?OPD 6. Whether the court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit?OPD 7, Whether the suit is bad for want of advalorem court fee?OPD 8. Whether the suit is bad for want of legal notice?OPD 9. Whether the plaintiff has mis-appropriated the Govt. money and he is liable to refund the said money to the defendants?OPD 10. Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff by way of the present suit had challenged the order of punishment dated 31.12.1990 and subsequent orders passed by defendants No. 1 and 2 on 28.10.1991 and 24.10.1996 rejecting the appeal filed by the plaintiff. The scope of judicial review regarding interference with punishment order is very limited. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is only to see the method/manner of awarding punishment. The Court is only Regular Second Appeal No.3552 of 2008 (O&M) 7 concerned with the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority. If the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority is according to rules and natural justice, then no interference with the punishment order is called for. The Civil Court cannot go into the merits of the case. In case, the finding of the Inquiry Officer is based on some evidence, then the Court cannot re- appreciate the evidence or weigh the same like the Appellate Authority. So long as there is some evidence in support of the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. Some defects in the inquiry has to be pointed out before the Civil Court can interfere with the punishment order. Further more, if defect is pointed out then the delinquent employee has to show as to what prejudice has been caused to him on account of the said defect. The Court exercising jurisdiction of judicial review is not to interfere with the finding of the fact arrived at in a departmental inquiry excepting in a case of mala fide or perversity. The finding recorded by the disciplinary authority is immune from interference within the limited scope of power of judicial review applicable to the Court. Plaintiff was working as a Range Officer and was to get replacement of trees upto 10%. However, the same was not done. The allegations against the petitioner is that he had misappropriated the funds while he was working as a Range Officer. Plaintiff was duly served with a chargesheet (Exhibit D5) along with relevant documents. However, plaintiff did not file any reply to the chargesheet. After completion of inquiry, inquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority by the Inquiry Officer. Notice of the inquiry report was also served upon the plaintiff and he filed the reply (Exhibit D12) to the same. Plaintiff was Regular Second Appeal No.3552 of 2008 (O&M) 8 afforded personal hearing vide Exhibit D13 and thereafter, the impugned order was passed. Recovery of loss suffered by the department was also sought to be made from the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff had caused loss of 73,509.75, the same was liable to be recovered from the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any procedural error in the inquiry proceedings. This Court cannot act as an Appellate Authority with regard to the punishment order passed by the competent authority after following due procedure. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge July 30, 2009 arya