Regular Second Appeal No. 1260 of 1986 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1260 of 1986 Date of Order: 04.09.2008 The State of Punjab and another ...Appellants Versus Nishan Singh ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. H.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The appellants, i.e. the State of Punjab and the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Tarn Taran, District Amritsar, challenge judgments and decrees passed by the Subordinate Judge Ist Class, Amritsar, dated 13.08.1995 and the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dated 04.11.1985. The respondent, a conductor with the Punjab Roadways Depot, Tarn Taran, was charge-sheeted on 20.10.1980. After the conduct of an enquiry his services were terminated. Nishan Singh-respondent filed a suit challenging the disciplinary proceedings as also the order of punishment by asserting that the charge-sheet was vague, indefinite and against rules. The imputations levelled against him were false and he was held guilty of violation of certain rules that did not exist and for cuttings in the way bills etc. The appellants, contested the suit, by asserting that the charge-sheet and the enquiry had been served and conducted in accordance with law. As the punishing authority has arrived at its conclusion on the basis of relevant material and after grant of due opportunity to the respondent, the suit be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for?OPP Regular Second Appeal No. 1260 of 1986 -2- II) Whether this Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD III) Relief. After parties led their evidence, the learned trial Court, decreed the suit, quashed the charge-sheet and the order of punishment by holding that the charge-sheet, was vague, the rules that cuttings in the way bill were punishable under the provisions of Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) were not produced and there was no evidence or material on record to show that the alleged cuttings, in the way bill were in any manner dishonest or had caused any loss to the department. Aggrieved by the said order, the State of Punjab filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar on 04.11.1985. Counsel for the State of Punjab states that both the trial Court and the first appellate Court, proceeded to exercise powers of a departmental authority, dealing with administrative enquiries and appeals. The learned courts below had no jurisdiction to appraise the allegation, draw any inference in respect thereof and to record findings as to the merits. It is submitted that civil courts, while adjudicating challenge to departmental proceedings/orders of punishment are bound by the principles of judicial review and cannot traverse the merits of the allegations levelled against a delinquent. It is submitted that whether the charges levelled are vague, or relevant rules were not produced, are insufficient to quash a charge-sheet and set aside an order of punishment. It is, therefore, prayed that as the impugned orders disclose an error of jurisdiction, raising a substantial question of law, the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside. No one is present on behalf of the respondent. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgments and also the record. It is not denied that the respondent was served with a charge-sheet for cuttings in the way bill entrusted to him. The courts below after considering the charge-sheet, the enquiry report and the order of punishment, recorded a Regular Second Appeal No. 1260 of 1986 -3- positive finding that there was no material on record, whether in the shape of statutory rules or instructions, to suggest that cuttings in way bills were punishable under the rules. The courts below also recorded concurrent findings of fact that there was no allegation that these cuttings in the way bills, were in any manner dishonest or related to a charge of misappropriation of fare received by the respondent. On the basis of the above conclusions both courts held that it was a case of no evidence and as the respondent had been wrongly punished, they set aside the order of punishment. The findings returned by the courts below in my considered opinion, do not call for interference. It is true that while adjudicating disputes arising from departmental proceedings, Court shall not re-appraise evidence or traverse the merits of the allegations. However, where departmental proceedings, are devoid of any inculpatory material or have been conducted in gross violation of mandatory rules, a Civil Court would be obliged to interfere and grant relief. A perusal of the findings recorded by the courts below reveal that they were conscious of their jurisdictional constrains but as they found, as a matter of fact, that there was no material before the punishing authority to warrant the order of punishment, they rightly proceeded to set aside the order of punishment. Counsel for the appellant could not refer to any rule or regulation or any allegation that cuttings in the way bill were an offence or were in any manner dishonest or connected to any allegation of mis-appropriation of the fare allegedly received by respondent. In this view of the matter, the concurrent findings of facts returned by the courts below, do not call for any interference. As no substantial question of law arises or has been framed for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. September 4, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE