R.S.A NO.2517 OF 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A NO.2517 OF 2010 (O & M) DECIDED ON 12.07.2010 State of Punjab and others ...appellantss versus Surjan Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present : Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional AG, Punjab. K.C.PURI, J. (ORAL) This is regular second appeal directed by State of Punjab and others against the judgment dated 17.03.2010 passed by Shri T.R.Bansal, Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Patiala vide which first appeal preferred by the State of Punjab against the judgment dated 27.02.2009 passed by Shri P.S.Rai, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala was dismissed. Briefly stated, Surjan Singh filed a suit for declaration against order No.60 dated 10.06.2003 vide which he was punished and his two increments were stopped with cumulative effect and order No.773 dated 02.02.2005 vide which the appeal was dismissed. R.S.A NO.2517 OF 2010 (O & M) -2- The case of plaintiff Surjan Singh was that he joined with the appellants-defendant as Warder on 12.10.1992 after his selection through the selection Board. The plaintiff was charge- sheeted by the Superintendent, Headquarters Jail, Patiala vide order dated 15.06.2002 and inquiry was conducted against him and ultimately punishment order dated 10.06.2003 was passed against him. He preferred appeal against the said order which was dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2005. The departmental inquiry was challenged on various grounds, as mentioned in the plaint. Defendant No.4 filed written statement denying the contents of the plaint. It was pleaded that inquiry was duly conducted under the Rules. Replication was filed by the plaintiff wherein he denied the contents mentioned in the written statement and reiterated the stand taken by him in the plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court : 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as office order No.60 dated 10.06.2003 and order dated 02.02.2005 are null and void ? OPP 2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to all the incremental benefits ? OPP 3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable R.S.A NO.2517 OF 2010 (O & M) -3- in the present form ? OPD 4) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to the file present suit ? OPD 5) Whether the notice under Section 80 C.P.C. is not legal and valid ? OPD 6) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands ? OPD 7) Relief. The learned trial Court, after appraisal of the evidence, came to the conclusion that inquiry against the plaintiff was faulty and ultimately decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated 27.02.2009, the defendants- appellants preferred first appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala. Feeling dissatisfied with both the judgments dated 17.03.2010 and 27.02.2009, the defendants-appellants have preferred the present regular second appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that both the Courts below have returned the finding that inquiry is not in accordance with law. He has further contended that in these circumstances in view of authority “State of Punjab and others vs. Dr.Harbhajan Singh Greasy” 1996 (3) RSJ 82, the Courts below could have ordered a fresh inquiry and the suit R.S.A NO.2517 OF 2010 (O & M) -4- should not have been decreed. He has further relied upon authority “Board of Management of S.V.T Educational Institution and another vs. A.Raghupathy Bhat and others” AIR 1997 Supreme Court 1898. I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the records of the case. The ratio of both the judgments cited above is that if inquiry is found to be defective in that case a fresh inquiry can be ordered by the Court. In authority Raghupathy Bhat's case (supra) the employee was removed from service and the Apex Court held that the High Court was not right in foreclosing the inquiry. In the present case, both the Courts below have not debarred the appellants from proceeding fresh inquiry against the plaintiff and as such, the above said authority is not helpful to the appellants. It was further held in the said authority that amount having been paid to the employee shall be subject to inquiry. In the present set of circumstances, the occurrence relates to the year 2002. The plaintiff was punished in the year 2003 and his first appeal was decided in the year 2005. Thereafter, he filed a suit challenging the departmental proceedings on the ground that proper inquiry has not been conducted. There is finding of fact that the inquiry conducted by the appellant is not in accordance with Rules, as detailed by both R.S.A NO.2517 OF 2010 (O & M) -5- the Courts below. The said finding has not been challenged. So finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below cannot be interfered in the regular second appeal. More so, when no question of law, much less, substantial question of law has arisen. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that respondent is still in service and he has to draw pension and other benefits after retirement. So, in case if after proper inquiry any punishment is awarded, in that case the recovery of amount can be made from him. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed on 27.02.2009 and learned counsel for the appellants is fair enough to concede that no departmental inquiry has been initiated against the plaintiff-respondent till day. So, in these circumstances, the plaintiff without any inquiry cannot be allowed to suffer. The authority Dr.Harbhajan's case (supra) is also not helpful to the appellants as in that case even the Apex Court has ordered that no inquiry should be conducted as the concerned doctor has retired from service. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. Decree sheet be prepared. JULY 12, 2010 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE