Regular Second Appeal No.1955 of 1985. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No.1955 of 1985. Date of decision:26.2.2008. State of Punjab and another. ...Appellants. Versus Tarsem Singh. ...Respondent. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. Yatender Sharma, DAG Punjab. Mr. J.C.Verma, Senior Advocate with Ms.Meenakshi Verma Advocate for the respondent. K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. This is a Regular Second Appeal directed by the State of Punjab and another against the judgment and decree dated 13.2.1985 passed by Mr. M.L.Singhal, the then Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which appeal was accepted and the judgment and decree dated 14.8.1984 delivered by Mr.M.S.Virdi, the then Sub Judge 3rd Class, Gurdaspur were set aside. The allegations against the plaintiff were that on Regular Second Appeal No.1955 of 1985. -2- 18.7.1981, he was on duty as a Conductor on duty on bus No.PBN- 8616 of Punjab Roadways, Pathankot and the bus was on its trip from Amritsar to Pathankot. The bus was checked by the Flying Squad at Gurdaspur. The Flying Squad found six passengers from Dhariwal to Gurdaspur without tickets. It was found that the Conductor (plaintiff) had charged Rs.5.70P at the rate of 25P per passenger. Two passengers from Amritsar to Gurdaspur were found without tickets and from them the Conductor (plaintiff) had taken Rs.11.80P at the rate of Rs.5.90P per passenger. In this manner, the Conductor/plaintiff had committed fraud of Rs.17.50P from the Government amount. The plaintiff was charge sheeted and a domestic inquiry was conducted. The plaintiff was found guilty and his services were ultimately terminated on 25.5.1983. The plaintiff has challenged the said order of termination on various grounds. The suit was resisted and it was pleaded that legal and proper inquiry was conducted. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1.Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?OPD. 2.Whether notice u/s 80 C.P.C was served in this case before filing the suit?OPP. 3.Whether the order of defendant No.2 dated 25.5.1983 dismissing the plaintiff from the service is illegal, null and Regular Second Appeal No.1955 of 1985. -3- void etc.?OPP. 4.Relief. The learned trial Court returned findings on issue Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff whereas issue No.3 was decided against the plaintiff. In view of findings on issue No.3, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 14.8.1984. Feeling dis-satisfied with the said judgment and decree dated 14.8.1984, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The learned first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.2.1985 accepted the appeal holding that charge sheet has been issued by the Traffic Manager who was not competent to issue the same. Aggrieved by the above-said judgment and decree, the State of Punjab and General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Pathankot have preferred the present Regular Second Appeal. I have heard arguments addressed by counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. Mr. Yatender Sharma, DAG Punjab, has formulated the following substantial question of law:- “Whether charge sheet issued by the Traffic Manager holding the charge of General Manager is valid?” It is not disputed, during the course of arguments, that the General Manager was competent to serve charge sheet upon the plaintiff. It is also not disputed that the Traffic Manager has issued the Regular Second Appeal No.1955 of 1985. -4- charge sheet and the same is stated to be counter signed by the General Manager. Mr. Yatendar Sharma, has submitted that the plea that the charge sheet has not been issued by the competent authority was not taken before the trial Court and, on that count, the said plea cannot be taken for the first time before the first Appellate Court. It is further submitted that the Traffic Manager was holding the charge of General Manager and as such was competent to issue charge sheet. Mr. J. C. Verma, on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the submissions made by Mr. Sharma do not find place in the grounds of appeal and as such the same cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time. No doubt that plea has not been specifically taken in the grounds of appeal, but, it has been mentioned that proper inquiry has been conducted and there is no fault in the inquiry. The controversy in the present lis is squarely covered by the authority State of Punjab and another Versus Baldev Singh, 96(4) Recent Services Judgments 780. In that authority, it has been held that a person who is performing the duties of General Manager of Punjab Roadways in addition to the duties of the post on which he is regularly appointed, cannot be termed as duly appointed person to the post of General Manager. Mere fact that the charge sheet has been counter signed does not validate the same. By counter signing the charge sheet, the State has accepted the fact that the same has to be issued by the General Manager and not by the Traffic Manager. Regular Second Appeal No.1955 of 1985. -5- So, in view of the above discussion, the substantial question of law stands answered against the appellants. Consequently, this appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. February 26,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge