Regular Second Appeal No. 1984 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1984 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Order: 29.09.2008 State of Haryana and others ...Appellants Versus Satnam Singh ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana for the appellants. Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The State of Haryana, challenges the judgments and decrees passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa, dated 11.05.2006 and District Judge, Sirsa, dated 12.02.2008, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent and dismissing their appeal. A motor vehicle belonging to the P.W.D.(B&R), Mechanical Sub Division, Sirsa, was being driven by one Prithvi Raj when It met with an accident, leading to the death of a third party and injuries to others. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,34,000/- on account of death, Rs. 80,000/- on account of injuries and Rs.8,000/- on account of damage to the scooter. The amount was made payable by Prithvi Raj, and the Sub Divisional Engineer Mechanical Sub Division, P.W.D.(B&R), Gurgaon and the State of Haryana jointly and severally. However, in the criminal case, Prithvi Raj, Driver was acquitted on 18.01.1997. A charge-sheet was thereafter served upon the respondent alleging that he had allowed Prithvi Raj to drive the truck without authority. After conduct of an enquiry, an order of punishment dated 19.10.2001 came to be passed imposing a punishment of recovery of Rs.76,312/-, stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and down grading of the Regular Second Appeal No. 1984 of 2008 (O&M) -2- ACR from Good to Average for the period of 1989-90. The plaintiff-respondent, impugned the correctness of the enquiry as also the order of punishment by contending that Prithvi Raj was deputed to drive the truck by the Sub Divisional Engineer as Puran Chand, the regular driver was on leave. It was further submitted that in a prior enquiry conducted by Sh. B.N.Lal, Executive Engineer, the respondent was exonerated vide his report dated 16.11.1990. The appellants opposed this prayer and on the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the order dated 19.10.2001 liable to be set aside ?OPP 2. If the above issue proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ?OPP 3. Relief. After an appraisal of the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial Court decreed the suit, quashed the enquiry proceedings and the order of punishment by holding that the enquiry conducted in gross violation of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment, the appellants filed an appeal. The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal by holding the enquiry was conducted without granting an opportunity to the respondent to put forth his defence. The enquiry officer merely called the respondent, put a few questions to him and, thereafter without affording an opportunity to put forth his defence proceeded to submit his report. Counsel for the appellant, submits that the courts below had no jurisdiction to appraise the enquiry report and record an opinion that the enquiry was illegal. The enquiry was conducted by following the Regular Second Appeal No. 1984 of 2008 (O&M) -3- procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules and even otherwise as the accident was admitted, the respondent cannot be allowed to escape his liability. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that a perusal of the enquiry report Ex.D9 clearly shows that the enquiry was a mere eye wash. The respondent was not granted any opportunity to defend the allegations, as the enquiry officer merely questioned the respondent and thereafter without grant of an opportunity to put forth his defence, concluded the enquiry and submitted his report. It is further submitted that the concurrent findings of fact returned by the courts below do not require interference. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the judgments. The courts below, are concurrent in their conclusions that the enquiry was conducted in abject disregard to the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 of the Rules. The enquiry officer did not grant the respondent an opportunity to defend the allegations levelled against him. The enquiry officer merely questioned the respondent and thereafter proceeded to conclude the enquiry on the same day. It is, therefore, apparent that as the departmental proceedings were inherently flawed, the courts below did not commit any error in setting aside the order of punishment and the enquiry. The concurrent findings returned by the courts below are neither perverse nor illegal.` Consequently, as there is no merit in the instant appeal. It is dismissed with liberty, however, to appellants to proceed afresh, if deemed appropriate. September 29, 2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE