R.S.A. No.1268 of 1997 -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.1268 of 1997 Date of decision:02.07.2010. The Punjab State and others ...Appellants Versus Dr. Nidhan Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Gurdip Singh, Advocate, and Mr. Chanderdeep Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The plaintiff – respondent had filed a suit for a declaration that the impugned order directing his dismissal from service was illegal. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit in toto and held that the plaintiff – respondent would be deemed to have continued in service as if the impugned order had not been granted. The learned First Appellate Court upheld the order by affirming the finding that the appropriate inquiry had not been held against the plaintiff – respondent. The finding of fact, recorded by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court, is that the inquiry held against the plaintiff – respondent was inappropriate for a host of reasons. The learned State counsel is not in a position to argue that there is any factual inaccuracy in the recording of that fact-based finding qua the R.S.A. No.1268 of 1997 -2- ****** inappropriate character of the inquiry held against the plaintiff – respondent. The learned State counsel has not been able to invite the attention of this Court to any substantial question of law which arises for consideration by this Court. The well reasoned findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and also the learned First Appellate Court deserve affirmation and it is so ordered accordingly. There being no substantial question of law for consideration, this Regular Second Appeal shall stand dismissed. Disposed of accordingly. July 02, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE