IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1091 of 1987 Date of Order: 25.9.2009 State of Punjab ...Appellant Versus Amar Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the appellant. None for the respondent. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, ‘the ‘Code’) filed by the defendant-State of Punjab, has challenged the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Court below holding that fair procedure in inquiry was not followed by allowing the plaintiff-respondent the help of his colleague or a co-employee and on that basis the order of termination of his service, dated 29.1.1982, passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Patti, has been declared as illegal. The findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court as contained in para 7 R.S.A. No. 1091 of 1987 reads thus:- “7. At the very out-set, it is indeed pertinent to note, that even a casual and a bare look on the aforesaid application unmistakably divulges, that the first three lines of the endorsements made thereon by the Enquiry Officer wherethrough the request of the respondent for being given the (?) are not only in different ink but also apparently in different hand writing, and appear to have been inserted only as an after through (thought?) and this being so, it has to have an inevitable effect of it being said, that things were maneuvered by the department people to make it appear that the requisite formality required to be complied with by the aforesaid rule 8.3. was in fact taken care of but rightly noticed by the learned trial judge and as is discernible from the enquiry file also it was not so done and at no stage of point of time was he (plaintiff-respondent) allowed to have the help of any colleague or a co-employee and in these circumstances, therefore, there can absolutely be no warrant or justification for sustaining the impugned order.” Another categorical finding recorded by the learned Lower Appellate Court is that the allegations were not substantiated by any cogent evidence. The plaintiff-respondent was charged with the allegation that he had charged fare from some of the passengers 2 R.S.A. No. 1091 of 1987 without issuing tickets to them whereas none of such person has been examined by the Enquiry Officer. It has been concluded that there was no evidence or material before the Enquiry Officer to indict the plaintiff-respondent and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer indicting the plaintiff-respondent are vitiated. Having heard learned State Counsel, I am of the considered view that no question of law would arise for determination in the instant case. Even at the stage of admission no question of law was framed, which may require determination under Section 100 of the Code. There are pure findings of fact and, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) September 25, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3