IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 720 of 1987 Date of Order: 25.9.2009 State of Punjab and another ...Appellants Versus Kamla Sood ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the appellants. Mr. Paramjit Singh, Advocate, 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 finding of fact recorded by both the Court below holding that speaking orders were not passed while withholding one increment of the plaintiff at efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.1.1981 for one year, vide order dated 24.3.1981 and subsequently while dismissing her appeal by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 22.6.1982. R.S.A. No. 720 of 1987 Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff was in service since 21.7.1956 and she was promoted as Inspectress on 7.1.1963. On 24.3.1981, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh, passed an order withholding one increment of the plaintiff at efficiency bar w.e.f. 1.1.1981 for one year. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority against order dated 24.3.1981, which was rejected on 22.6.1982. The aforementioned orders were assailed by the plaintiff by filing a suit for declaration on the ground that the orders have been illegally passed because her reply to the charge sheet was not considered and no enquiry was conducted as per rules. The Appellate Authority has also not considered her appeal on merits. After framing of issues and hearing the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that in the order dated 24.3.1981 did not disclose the reasons as to why reply of the plaintiff was rejected. The Appellate Authority also failed to record any reason for rejecting the appeal of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit was decreed by the trial Court and it set aside the impugned orders. She was held entitled to all the benefits. On an appeal preferred by the defendant-State of Punjab the learned Lower Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court. Before the learned Lower Appellate Court it was asserted on behalf of the defendant-State of Punjab that the Appellate Authority was not required to give reasons in its order while agreeing with the order of the punishing authority. The Learned Lower Appellate Court after noticing various judgments as well as instructions issued by the 2 R.S.A. No. 720 of 1987 Punjab Government from time to time negatived the argument raised by the Government Pleader. The other stand taken by the defendant- State of Punjab was that the record of the plaintiff was bad and that is why the order of withholding or crossing of efficiency bar for one year against the plaintiff was passed. After noticing the alleged adverse remarks as contained in Ex. D1 and D2, the learned Lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the same were merely advisory in nature and cannot be considered as adverse. In this way, the learned Lower Appellate Court affirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court. 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. These 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