Regular Second Appeal No.2827 of 2009 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 16, 2010 Jagir Singh ...Appellant VERSUS Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Present: Mr.R.M.Gupta, Advocate, for Mr.Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.P.S.Thiara, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Jagir Singh had filed a suit claiming declaration that he is entitled to the benefit of service w.e.f. 1.2.1990 except for two increments, which were ordered to be stopped by the respondents by way of punishment vide order dated 2.1.1997. Regular Second Appeal No.2827 of 2009 (O&M) : 2 : The appellant was accused of some omissions/commissions and placed under suspension on 19.10.1990. He remained under suspension till 1.8.1994. The appellant was proceeded against for these omissions and the case was disposed of with award of punishment of stoppage of two increments on 2.1.1997. The appellant filed a civil suit at Ludhiana to challenge this punishment of stoppage of two increments. During the pendency of this suit, another order was passed by the respondent- board to treat the period of his suspension as a leave of kind due. The civil suit, which was filed by the appellant was decided in the year 2005 and the punishment of stoppage of two increments was passed. As already noted, during the pendency of the earlier suit, the appellant had filed the present suit at Hoshiarpur where he was then posted to ask for service benefits except for the stoppage of two increments. Obviously, the effect of the punishment was still continuing and the relief, which the appellant had claimed, was the only which he could have asked for. During the pendency of this suit, however, the facts situation underwent a change when in 2005 the earlier suit of the appellant was allowed and the punishment was set-aside. The effect of setting-aside of this punishment obviously would not have been taken into consideration while maintaining the order passed in the year 2004 for treating the period of suspension as a leave of kind due. The trial Court accordingly decreed the suit by considering all these aspects. The respondent-board thereafter filed an appeal against the same and the first appellate Court has non-suited the appellant Regular Second Appeal No.2827 of 2009 (O&M) : 3 : by reversing the findings of the trial Court primarily on the ground that the order, whereby the period of suspension was treated as a leave of kind due, was not challenged in the civil suit. This suit was filed by the appellant when earlier suit filed by him at Ludhiana was still pending and the punishment was standing against him. The order regularising the period of suspension so could not have been challenged. Once the punishment was set- aside and this order was allowed to become final, the resultant effect of this would follow. Even if this order is not challenged, the board is expected to suo-motu take this into consideration and put this order into effect. The suit was filed by the appellant when this punishment was standing. Strictly speaking, the suit filed by the appellant could be said to have been rendered infructuous since the punishment was set-aside and the relief, which the appellant has claimed, would have automatically followed. The first appellate Court instead of appreciating this legal position went at tangent to say that this order was not under challenge and reversed the finding. As already noticed, there was no requirement for the appellant to challenge this order in view of the suit having been allowed setting-aside the punishment awarded to him. In this view of the matter, following substantial question of law would arise:- “Whether the order passed on the basis of punishment could stand even when the order of punishment itself was set-aside which led to passing of the order.” The Appellate Court, in my view, did not rightly appreciate this question of law. The judgment under appeal, therefore, cannot Regular Second Appeal No.2827 of 2009 (O&M) : 4 : be sustained and is set-aside. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The necessary consequences would follow. Let the modified decree be prepared by the Registry of this court. March 16, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE