R.S.A. No.1658 of 2002 -1- ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.1658 of 2002 Date of decision:07.07.2010. The Punjab State and others ...Appellants Versus Dr. Ravinderjit Singh Sidhu ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, DAG, Punjab. None for the respondent. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The impugned penalty of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect was imposed upon the plaintiff – respondent whose plea for the invalidation thereof came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 30.08.1999. The view obtained by the learned Trial Court was affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 18.01.2001. The concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts was that a copy of the inquiry report had not been supplied to the plaintiff – respondent and that there was variation in the show cause notice and the charge upheld by the Enquiry Officer on the point of date (qua the date he was found absent from duty). There is also the finding that though the plaintiff – respondent had been found absent from duty on 9.10.1989, there was admission of DW1 on record that leave for 9th October, 1989 R.S.A. No.1658 of 2002 -2- ****** had been duly sanctioned to the plaintiff – respondent. The relevant fact- based observations made by the learned First Appellate Court are extracted hereunder: - “The perusal of the show cause notice show that no allegations against the plaintiff was that he was found absent from duty on 9.10.89 at 10.20 am. Whereas DW1 has admitted that plaintiff was on leave on 7, 8, 9 of October, 1989 which was sanctioned. When the plaintiff was on casual leave then it cannot be said that he was absent from duty, it shows that the reply of the plaintiff was not considered properly. Enquiry report had not been supplied to the plaintiff. The findings given by the enquiry officer are with regard to the pasting of slips on 11, 12, 13 October, 1989 and marking the presence. But the show cause notice is pertaining to the absence of the plaintiff on duty on 9.10.89. So, there is no application of judicial mind by the punishing authority.” 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. 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 07, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE