Regular Second Appeal No. 2915 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2915 of 1986 Date of decision: 23.03.2010 The State of Punjab and others ...Appellants Versus Shri Hardeep Singh Randhawa ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the appellant. Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent. RANJIT SINGH J. The State is in appeal before this Court against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. The respondent-plaintiff, who was appointed as Stenotypist in 1975 had filed this suit to challenge the order dated 26.08.1981 of his removal from service on the ground that same was illegal and void. As per the averment in the plaint, the respondent- plaintiff made a request for his transfer from Jalandhar to Chandigarh but was transferred to Amritsar. Three separate charge sheets were served on the respondent-plaintiff. The first charge sheet contained 12 charges whereas second charge sheet contained 11 charges and the third one was containing one charge. Though the nature of the charges is not made out from the impugned judgments, it appears that the respondent-plaintiff had refused to accept the communication given to him or he was found not present in the office on certain dates. There is no requirement of making reference to the Regular Second Appeal No. 2915 of 1986 2 specific charges. Suffice it to say that inquiry officer was detailed to inquire into the charges, who submitted his report on 26.06.1981. The inquiry officer held most of the charges proved against the respondent-plaintiff and after affording opportunity of hearing, he was removed from service. The respondent-plaintiff accordingly challenged the order of his termination on the ground that the charge sheets issued to him were defective as they were vague. It was also urged that no list of witnesses or the statement of allegations were supplied alongwith the memo of charges. Even the statement recorded during the preliminary inquiry was also not delivered to him. Finally it was pleaded that the procedure adopted by the inquiry officer was contrary to the rules. The suit was defended by the appellant-State. In the written statement filed, the factual position was admitted. It was urged that the inquiry conducted in this case was proper and was held by giving full opportunity to the respondent-plaintiff. It is also stated that no prejudice was caused to the respondent-plaintiff. The suit was accordingly tried on the following issues by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the impugned order of removal dated 26.8.1981 was illegal, void etc. as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to consequential benefits. If so, which benefits? OPP 3. Relief. The suit was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent- plaintiff filed an appeal against the same, which was allowed. While Regular Second Appeal No. 2915 of 1986 3 allowing the suit, what had weighed with the First Appellate Court was that the inquiry officer adopted the procedure, which was not legal. The submission is that the procedure as adopted by the inquiry officer led to causing a serious prejudice to the case of the respondent-plaintiff. This plea advanced by the respondent-plaintiff was accepted by the First Appellate Court. It was found that the respondent-plaintiff had made a request for changing the inquiry officer, which was declined. The inquiry officer while holding the inquiry, first summoned the respondent-plaintiff and recorded his evidence before he could begin with the evidence of the prosecution. No only that, the questions were also put to the respondent-plaintiff and his reply was accordingly recorded. Thereafter, the respondent- plaintiff was directed to produce the list of witnesses, which he did on 08.01.1981. The list of the department's witnesses were subsequently given on 28.04.1981. The statement of the respondent-plaintiff was recorded on 8/9.01.1981. The Director had written a letter on 03.02.1981 to the inquiry officer to produce the document on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. While doing so, it was recorded that the respondent-plaintiff had not come present despite opportunity and so was proceeded exparte. On the basis of cumulative effect of this, it was found that the procedure adopted by the inquiry officer was in violation of the procedure prescribed and was unknown to law. The appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff was accordingly allowed. The counsel for the respondent-plaintiff points out that the respondent-plaintiff was reinstated into service on the basis of this Regular Second Appeal No. 2915 of 1986 4 judgment. The perusal of the file would show that respondent-plaintiff was permitted to be reinstated into service but was not paid back wages. Later direction to pay the back wages was also made on 08.12.1986. In fact the order dated 24.10.1986 would show that while declining the back wages or pay, the direction was issued for reinstatement of the respondent-plaintiff into service. That being the position, there would be no need to decide the question of law. The manner in which the inquiry was held could certainly be said to have caused prejudice to the case of the respondent-plaintiff. The procedure to conduct enquiry is regulated by Rule 8 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. Perusal of rule would show that first prosecution is required to prove the charges by leading evidence. Once the case of prosecution is complete only then a delinquent employee can be called upon to lead his evidence or to make a statement. This procedure was violated leading to a prejudice. The view taken by the First Appellate Court on the basis of procedure adopted in this case cannot be faulted. The Regular Second Appeal, therefore, is dismissed. March 23, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE