R.S.A. No. 2423 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 2423 of 2008 Date of decision: 21.03.2009 Rajinder Singh ....Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgments and decree dated 15.12.2006 and 19.11.2007 passed by the learned Courts below vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant to challenge the order of stoppage of one increment with cummulative effect, as also penalty of recovery of amount embezzled, has been ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff brought a suit, that on 12.4.2003, while the plaintiff was posted as conductor on bus No. 323 of the Haryana Roadways, Kurukshetra to Manali, the bus was checked by Bakhtawar Singh and Surinder Kumar, Roadways Inspectors. The, notice was issued to the plaintiff/appellant by General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Kurukshetra, alleging embezzlement of Rs.146/-. A show R.S.A. No. 2423 of 2008 -2- cause notice was issued to the plaintiff, to which reply was filed. On consideration of reply and holding inquiry, the plaintiff was awarded punishment of stoppage of one annual inrement with cummulative effect. The plaintiff also claimed that in view of order dated 2.12.2003, wrong entry in his annual confidential report was also made for the year 2003- 04. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the recording of annual confidential report, which was dismissed. The plaintiff claimed that inquiry report, order of punishment and the adverse ACR are illegal, null and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff on the following grounds: - “i) No proper opportunity of hearing was given to the plaintiff. ii) Plaintiff was charge sheeted on the witness of the roadways inspectors and no independent witness was joined. iii) Order dated 31.9.2003 of Enquiry Officer is based on surmises and conjectures and the defendant No. 3 without applying its mind issued the show cause notice to the plaintiff. iv) Enquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer is not based on the true facts. v) ACR dated 14.7.2004 is also illegal, null and void and no opportunity has been given and order of the appeal passed by defendant no. 2 is also illegal as the defendant No. 2 did not even summon the plaintiff to put his case before him and passed the blanket order on the remarks of the defendant No. 3. vi) The department rules and procedure has not been adopted. Despite repeated requests of the plaintiff, the defendants have refused to admit the claim of the R.S.A. No. 2423 of 2008 -3- plaintiff. Hence, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff.” The suit was contested where all the allegations levelled were denied and it was asserted that the inquiry was held by following principles of natural justice, and the plaintiff/appellant was given full opportunity to defend himself. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence held that the plaintiff was not entitled to declaration, as the order impugned could not be said to be illegal or null and void. In view of the finding that the plaintiff was not entitled to declaration, he was held, not entitled to consequential regular service benefits also. The preliminary objections to maintainability of the suit were rejected. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that this appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: - “1. Whether the appellant could be chargesheeted on the witness of Roadways Inspectors in absence of any independent witness? 2. Whether the orders passed are in violation of principles of natural justice?” In support of the substantial questions of law, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends, that except examining the Inspector, the Inquiry Officer did not examine any independent witness to substantiate the charge against the plaintiff/appellant. The Inspector being interested witness could not be relied upon, as he merely proved the report submitted to the General Manager. R.S.A. No. 2423 of 2008 -4- However, this plea of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted, in view of the settled law that in the departmental inquiry, even report of the Inspector, who inspected the bus can be taken into consideration without examining the passengers said to be independent witnesses. Nothing has been brought on record to show any malice of those Inspectors or Inquiry Officer against the plaintiff/appellant. It is also incorrect to contend that no opportunity was granted to the appellant to defend himself, as plaintiff/appellant was given full opportunity to defend himself. The learned Courts below held that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with rules and the principles of natural justice were duly followed, giving full opportunity. The substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed in limine. (Vinod K. Sharma) March 21, 2009 Judge R.S. R.S.A. No. 2423 of 2008 -5-