Regular Second Appeal No.2991 of 1988 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 13, 2010 The Municipal Corporation, Amritsar through its Commissioner ...Appellant VERSUS Kulwant Singh & another ...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.Sandeep Khunger, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Ms.Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab, for respondent No.2. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Kulwant Singh, respondent No.1 was working as a Driver in the Nigam Transport, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar during the year 1986. While serving with the Corporation, he was subjected to Regular Second Appeal No.2991 of 1988 : 2 : departmental enquiry with the allegation that he had shown a journey of 168 K.M. and had drawn diesel, which, in fact amounted to defrauding the Nigam Transport. After completion of the enquiry, the respondent-plaintiff was dismissed from service on 26.9.1984. He filed a departmental appeal against the same before the Divisional Commissioner, Jullundur Division, which was dismissed on 20.5.1985. The respondent-plaintiff impugned this order by filing a civil suit pleading that the order was illegal, void, null and in-effective. His submission was that the charge sheet served to him was vague and defective and was not accompanied by valid list of documents and, thus, the respondent-plaintiff felt handicapped in submitting his reply. A request was made before the Enquiry Officer to supply the documents so as to cross-examine the witnesses. In response, the respondent-plaintiff was told that he had a right to inspect the documents. Grievance is that the respondent-plaintiff was also not given assistance of a co-employee and that the finding of the Enquiry Officer was based on no evidence. The suit was contested by the appellant-Corporation. The plea is that respondent-plaintiff was a permanent employee of the Corporation an was rightly charge sheeted. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff against which he filed an appeal. The first Appellate Court while reversing the findings of the trial Court granted declaration to the effect that the order dated 26.9.1984 passed by the Commissioner, Corporation, Amritsar was illegal, against facts and in violation of principles of natural justice and, thus, not binding on the plaintiff. The Corporation accordingly filed this Regular Second Appeal. Regular Second Appeal No.2991 of 1988 : 3 : During the pendency of the Regular Second Appeal, the execution proceedings which had been filed by the respondent- plaintiff, were stayed. However, there was no stay of the operation of the judgment under appeal. The respondent-plaintiff was accordingly reinstated into service on 3.11.1998. During the pendency of the Regular Second Appeal, some subsequent developments have taken place, which had been permitted to be placed on record by way of additional evidence. The respondent-plaintiff filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for permitting him to place on record Annexures R-1 and R-2 by way of additional evidence. Annexure R-1 is an order whereby the respondent-plaintiff had been retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.3.2001. He has also been granted provisional pension on the same date as per Annexure R-2. This evidence was allowed when no objection was raised on behalf of the counsel for the appellant. The submission made on behalf of the respondent- plaintiff is that he was a permanent employee of Punjab Roadways and had been deputed to work with the Municipal Corporation. The order directing transfer of his service to the Corporation was subject matter of challenge in a Civil Writ Petition, which was allowed and the direction issued to transfer the services of the respondent-plaintiff or other Drivers to the Corporation was set-aside. Letters Patent Appeal was also filed against the same by the State of Punjab but the same was also dismissed. As a result, all the Drivers, who had been sent or deputed to work with the Corporation, were again sent back to the Roadways. The respondent-plaintiff, thus, continued to serve with Regular Second Appeal No.2991 of 1988 : 4 : the Punjab Roadways from where he has retired. The effect of this subsequent events is that the respondent-plaintiff cannot be taken to be an employee of the Corporation. The apprehension expressed by the counsel appearing for the Corporation that it would be burdened with the financial liability in view of the impugned order, appears to be out of place. Once it is held that the respondent-plaintiff was not an employee of the Corporation, any consequence arising out of the order perhaps cannot be forced against the Corporation. Mr.Mahajan, after receiving proper instructions, also submits that the respondent-plaintiff would not claim any financial benefit from the Corporation. However, the counsel says that he has his right to claim all the financial benefits for this period from the Punjab Roadways, which is his employer and reserves his right in this regard. Needless to mention that the respondent-plaintiff would be entitled to all the consequential benefits for the period he has served with the Corporation from his main employer, i.e., Punjab Roadways. The Regular Second Appeal, thus, is rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such. May 13, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE