REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.648 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 10, 2010 Gurcharan Singh .....Appellant VERSUS Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and others ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Arun Chandra, Advocate, for the Appellant. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The appellant was imposed a punishment of stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect on 9.11.2001. He filed a departmental appeal against the same, which was rejected on 11.7.2002. He accordingly filed the suit impugning both the orders. The suit, however, was dismissed. He has remained unsuccessful in the appeal and has now filed the present Regular Second Appeal. The appellant had primarily impugned the punishment on the ground that no legal charge sheet was served; no enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was given to him. The court found as a matter of fact that he was served a charge sheeted dated REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.648 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 2 }: 15.11.2000 and upon receipt of reply, enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report and thereafter show cause notice was served to the appellant. Rather, the appellant had admitted during cross-examination that enquiry was conducted against him and that show cause notice was served on him and that he had submitted reply to the same. He was thereafter afforded opportunity of hearing. He was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer. It was, thus, found that the appellant was afforded proper opportunity and there was no violation of any rule while conducting an enquiry. Accordingly, the submissions made by the appellant were found without basis. The other submission made by the learned counsel is to the effect that the appellant has been awarded double punishment. He would submit that separate notice was not issued to him for forfeiture of salary other then subsistence allowance for the period he had remained under suspension. The same submission is advanced here and in support reference is made to the cases of P.R.T.C., Patiala Vs. Dalip Singh, 2001(3) SCT 372 and P.R.T.C., Patiala Vs. Dalip Singh, 2000 (4) SCT 688. The judgments relied upon by counsel for the appellant would not be attracted to the fact situation in this case. In case of Dalip Singh (supra) and Darshan Singh (supra), the delinquent employees were awarded a punishment of withholding of wages for the suspension period in addition to withholding of the increment in one go as punishment. Thus, it was observed in these cases that the impugned order could not be sustained. These were rightly struck down by the Court below. In case of Dalip Singh (supra), the matter was remitted to the authorities to pass a fresh order as to which of the two punishments REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.648 OF 2009 (O&M) :{ 3 }: was to be retained. In the instant case, the appellant was not awarded forfeiture of salary for the period of suspension as punishment. An order forfeiting the salary other then subsistence allowance for the period the appellant had remained under suspension was separately passed, which is what would be the requirement of a law under Rule 7.5 of the Civil Services Rules. Accordingly, there is no substantial question of law requiring consideration in this case. The suit of the appellant has been rightly dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. February 10, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE