Regular Second Appeal No. 3639 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3639 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.11.2009 Bhag Singh ..Appellant v. The State of Punjab and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. N. S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the appellant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. The plaintiff is before this Court against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below, whereby the suit filed by him for declaration challenging the order dated 16.3.2000, passed by Chief Engineer (National Highway), Punjab Public Works Department, Building and Roads Branch, Patiala inflicting on the appellant punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and also a penalty of Rs. 53,142/-, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant-plaintiff, who was working as Junior Engineer at the relevant time was served upon a charge sheet for various lapses committed by him. After enquiry, the charges against the appellant were proved. After supplying him copy of the enquiry report, a show cause notice was issued before inflicting the punishment. After hearing the appellant-plaintiff, stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and penalty of Rs. 53,142/- was imposed vide order dated 16.3.2000. The appellant filed a civil suit challenging the aforesaid order on 2.5.2000, which was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the trial court was also upheld by the learned lower appellate court holding that due opportunity was granted to the appellant and no defect was found in the process of enquiry and the principles of natural justice were not violated. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that relevant documents were not supplied to him during the course of enquiry on the basis of which the appellant could prove his innocence. A request for the same was made to the disciplinary authority vide letter dated 13.1.2000. However, the same was not Regular Second Appeal No. 3639 of 2007 [2] taken care of. He further submitted that proper receipt and use of Bitumen, which was received by the appellant, was shown during the course of enquiry, but the same was not considered. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. As far as the fact of supply of documents is concerned, request for the same was made on 13.1.2000 after the enquiry was already over and the appellant was issued a notice along with copy of the enquiry report to show cause before inflicting punishment on him. Nothing on the record has been pointed out to show that during the course of enquiry, the appellant sought copy of any document or inspection of the record to enable him to defend himself. It was also pointed out during the course of hearing that the appellant had the statutory remedy of appeal against the order challenged in the civil suit and after filing of the civil suit, appeal was also filed on 18.5.2000, which remained pending because of filing of civil suit. The scope of interference in judicial review against the process of enquiry is to see as to whether the official concerned has been granted fair opportunity or not. As in the present case, it could not be pointed out that there was any violation of the principles of natural justice, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by both the courts below. No substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 30.11.2009 mk