Regular Second Appeal No.4737 of 2009 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 18, 2010 Surinder Kumar ...Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Rajesh Punj, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The appellant was working as a Science Master and has been burdened with a recovery of Rs.70,000/- on the ground that equipments worth Rs.2,70,000/- were found deficient in the Science Laboratory which was statedly under his charge. The appellant had earlier approached this court for grant of his retiral benefits, which were not paid to him, though he had retired from service on 31.1.1996. Taking into consideration the response filed to the writ Regular Second Appeal No.4737 of 2009 (O&M) : 2 : petition, Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition by passing the following order:- “We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The interest of justice would be served if the respondent- institution breaks open the lock of science/biology laboratory which is stated to be under lock for the last more than three years and make inventories of the items lying therein. So ordered. The respondent-management thereafter shall proceed against the petitioner if articles in the laboratory are found less than what had been given in charge to him as per stand of the institution. The respondent shall hold an enquiry and if during enquiry it is found that the charge of laboratory was not handed over to the petitioner at all, no deduction from his post retiral benefits shall be made and the petitioner shall be paid the post retiral benefits with interest at the rate of 10%. If, however, during enquiry it is found that the charge of the laboratory was handed over to the petitioner and the articles lying therein as per inventory so prepared are less, the respondent shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law for recovery of price of the lost articles of laboratory, from him. In that case the petitioner shall obviously not be entitled to any interest also. The enquiry shall be finalized within a period of three months from a date when the petitioner appears before the Principal of the respondent/institution. Regular Second Appeal No.4737 of 2009 (O&M) : 3 : Petitioner is directed to appear before the Management/Principal on 9th April, 1999.” Pursuant to the above-mentioned order passed by the High Court, an enquiry was held. The record would show that notices were issued to the appellant, but he did not participate in the enquiry. The enquiry was accordingly proceeded ex-parte and the laboratory was opened by the board of officers and the list of the missing items from the laboratory was prepared. On the basis of recommendation of the enquiry, sum of Rs.70,000/- was directed to be deducted from the retiral benefits due to the appellant. That would be inconsonance with the order passed by this court in the writ petition, which is reproduced above. These directions subsequently were challenged by the appellant by filing the present civil suit. The civil suit was dismissed. Same has been the fate of his first appeal. The appellant accordingly has filed the present Regular Second Appeal. This Court can interfere in regular second appeal only if the substantial question of law is raised. As per the counsel for the appellant, finding given by the Enquiry Officer is against the evidence on record, which, according to him would be a substantial question of law. The question as formulated will only mean re-appreciation of the evidence. That is what appears to be the whole stress of the submission made by the counsel for the appellant. He would refer to the documents annexed with the Regular Second Appeal to urge that it could not be established if the charge of laboratory was ever handed over to the appellant. The counsel would also urge that even the loss had not been properly determined. The counsel has also made some submission to say that it cannot be believed that the Regular Second Appeal No.4737 of 2009 (O&M) : 4 : laboratory had remained locked for over a period of five years as if no students were being taught. All these aspects, in my view, would not raise any substantial question of law requiring consideration but only would show that the appreciation of the evidence is being sought. That may not be within the purview of Regular Second Appeal. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. May 18, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE