RSA No. 1668 of 1990 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1668 of 1990 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.11.2010 Rajinder Kumar Malhota .....Appellant Versus Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and another ….Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 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: None for the appellant. Shri Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate, for the respondents. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against that part of the judgment and decree of the learned first Appellate Court, whereby liberty was granted to the management to proceed against the plaintiff according to law. The defendant-respondents passed an order on 23.2.1984 removing the plaintiff from service on account of misconduct. The said order was challenged before the Civil Court. The plaintiff also claimed a mandatory injunction for payment of the consequential benefits. RSA No. 1668 of 1990 (O&M) [2] The learned trial Court found that the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority is passed by the authority lower in rank than the appointing authority and consequently, the said order is void. As a consequence of the said order, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed and a decree for mandatory injunction was granted directing the defendants to pay the consequential benefits. In appeal by the defendants before the first Appellate Court, a finding regarding illegality of the order was maintained, but liberty was granted to the management to proceed according to law against the plaintiff. Initially, the appeal was filed by Shri Inderjit Malhotra, Advocate. After his death, Shri B.S. Walia, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant, but none has put in appearance on 29.6.2010, when the appeal was taken up for hearing. Even today, none is present on behalf of the appellant. I do not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court granting liberty to the management to continue with the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, such was the only logical order, which could have been passed by the first Appellate Court. It is so held in NTC (WBAB&O) Ltd. and another v. Anjan K. Saha,(2004)7 Supreme Court Cases 581. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present regular second appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 22-11-2010 ds