Regular Second Appeal No.3977 of 2009 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: April 07, 2010 The State of Haryana & others ...Appellants VERSUS Sumer Singh ...Respondent 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.Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the appellants. Mr.Manoj Chahal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking declaration that order dated 14.11.2002 passed by Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, awarding punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments with permanent effect was bad and be set-aside Regular Second Appeal No.3977 of 2009 (O&M) : 2 : was dismissed. Respondent-plaintiff filed an appeal against the same order before the first Appellate Court, which was allowed. There is not much dispute in regard to the factual position between the parties. On the basis of enquiry held in this case, the respondent-plaintiff was exonerated by the Enquiry Officer. This, however, was not agreed to by the punishing authority, i.e., Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani. He accordingly recorded a disagreement note and issued show cause notice to the respondent- plaintiff. After receiving the reply, the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani, passed the impugned order punishing respondent-plaintiff. The State has filed an appeal against the view taken by the first Appellate Court. The substantial question of law, according to the State counsel, is that the first Appellate Court was totally misconceived in saying that there was a need to hold re-enquiry into the matter in case the punishing authority was not agreeing with the finding returned by the Enquiry Officer. He would say that this position is contrary to the settled legal proposition to the effect that the punishing authority would always have powers to record a disagreement note with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and then proceed ahead to take action against the delinquent employee. The finding returned by the first Appellate Court has been perused by me. The first Appellate Court has precisely recorded this reason to non-suit the State while allowing the appeal. It is recorded by the first Appellate Court that once the Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani had received the departmental enquiry, he had recorded Regular Second Appeal No.3977 of 2009 (O&M) : 3 : disagreement note. The first Appellate Court then proceeded ahead to observe that if he is to be treated as an appointing authority, then enquiry should have been conducted under the direction of Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani. It is noticed that Murari Lal, DSP, National Highway, Patrolling and Road Safety, Gurgaon had conducted the enquiry and once Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani was not satisfied with the enquiry, then he could have initiated re- enquiry against the respondent-plaintiff. It is also noticed that disagreement note is without any reasonable ground. The view taken by the first appellate court cannot be sustained. Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani having been considered as competent punishing authority and the appointing authority, he was well within his rights under law to record a note of disagreement. The observation that he could have held a re-enquiry rather would sound contrary to the legal position as settled. Accordingly, this finding by the first Appellate Court in this regard cannot be sustained. Faced with this situation, counsel for the appellants submits that disagreement note did not contain any reason for the disagreement. He would also submit that he had raised the plea about the competency of Superintendent of Police, Bhiwani to act as an appointing authority/punishing authority. This aspect perhaps has escaped consideration of the first Appellate Court. Accordingly, while setting-aside the impugned order, the case is remanded back to the first Appellate Court to re-consider in the light of above noted submissions. The first Appellate Court would be at liberty to hear the parties and pass a fresh order in accordance Regular Second Appeal No.3977 of 2009 (O&M) : 4 : with law. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly disposed of. April 07, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE