R.S.A No. 2960 of 2009 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 2960 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : November 09, 2009 Sukhdev Singh, ...... Appellant (s) v. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing that of the trial Court and consequently dismissing the suit of the appellant challenging the punishment of stoppage of two increments. The sole ground taken by the trial Court was that no notice was issued to the appellant. However, it is not disputed that the appellant wrote various letters to the employer pointing out that inquiry proceedings should not be allowed to continue. In my opinion, once the appellant knew that inquiry was going on against him, it was incumbent upon him to take R.S.A No. 2960 of 2009 (O&M) ::2:: whatever pleas he wanted to take before the Inquiry Officer. Merely writing letters to the respondents protesting about the inquiry would not have any effect on rendering the whole process nugatory. The following questions have been proposed :- “ 1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge is liable to be set aside being illegal and has been passed without application of mind ? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be restored being legal and just ? 3. Whether the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is without any jurisdiction ? 4. Whether Ex.D3/1 is assumed to be a proved document and whether it indicates if the letter sent and alleged to have been received by the plaintiff/appellant was a show cause notice ?” As mentioned above, as far as this Court is concerned, the determinative fact is that the appellant at all times knew that an inquiry was pending against him, yet instead of joining the inquiry proceedings and requesting the Inquiry Officer for supply of any copy which he had not received, he kept writing letters to the employer challenging the continuance of the inquiry. Such a conduct belies the attempt of the appellant about the inquiry on any pretext. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to such an obdurate employee who despite knowing that an inquiry is pending against him refused to appear before the R.S.A No. 2960 of 2009 (O&M) ::3:: Inquiry Officer. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed with, however, no order as to costs. As the main appeal has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) November 09, 2009. JUDGE `kk'