Regular Second Appeal No. 1514 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1514 of 2007 Date of Decision: August 03, 2009 Baljit Singh ......... Appellant versus State of Punjab .......... Respondent 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Shri Rajeev Anand, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Ambica Luthera, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent State HEMANT GUPTA, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Courts below whereby suit for declaration challenging the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 18.11.2003, was dismissed. The appellant while working as a driver was found carrying poppy husk in Bus No. PB-12C-9662 on 17.11.1998. A criminal case was registered against the plaintiff which ended into his acquittal. However, in departmental inquiry proceedings, the appellant was earlier suspended vide order dated 23.11.1998 but after inquiry, an order of punishment as Regular Second Appeal No. 1514 of 2007 [2] mentioned above was passed. The plaintiff has challenged the order of punishment primarily on the ground that he was not guilty in terms of instructions dated 27.01.1998 issued by the Director, State Transport, Punjab, Chandigarh, and instructions dated 06.02.1998 issued by the General Manager of the Roadways. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer is illegal. In reply, the stand of the defendant was that the inquiry has been conducted against the plaintiff by the Inquiry Officer in accordance with the Rules and after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Both the learned Courts below have not found any procedural irregularity or lapse in the inquiry proceedings and consequently dismissed the suit. Still aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are not based upon any evidence of the witnesses who have seen poppy husk in the possession of the appellant in the bus and, therefore, in the absence of best evidence, the evidence relied upon by the Inquiry Officer cannot be made the basis of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. The said argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is untenable. In departmental proceedings, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is not applicable. Even hearsay evidence is admissible as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another vs. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512. In view of the said fact, evidence of Tarsem Lal Inspector and Resham Singh,Yard Master, were sufficient to return a finding by the Enquiry Officer that the appellant was found in possession of poppy husk while on duty on 17.11.1999 on Bus No. PB-12C-9662. Thus, the charge Regular Second Appeal No. 1514 of 2007 [3] was found to be proved against the appellant. On the basis of such finding, an order of punishment has been passed. The entire argument of learned counsel for the appellant is based on the fact that direct evidence has not been produced. Such argument is untenable. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be said to be suffering from any procedural irregularity or patent illegality which may give rise to any substantial question of law for determination by this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. August 03, 2009 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) ks JUDGE