In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.2060 of 1988 ..... Date of decision:16.9.2011 Ghamghaur Singh .....Appellant v. The State of Punjab .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 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: None for the appellant. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This is regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court vide which appeal of the appellant- plaintiff-Ghamghaur Singh against the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been dismissed. Necessary facts for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant filed a suit against the Punjab State (respondent herein) for declaration that the order dated 20.2.1984 of General Manager, Punjab Roadways vide which his services were terminated was illegal, void and liable to be set R.S.A. No.2060 of 1988 [2] aside on the ground that the charge-sheet issued to him was wrong and defective. The Inquiry Officer was neither punishing authority nor he was specifically delegated with the power to hold the inquiry. The inquiry held in the case was full of irregularities and was not held in accordance with Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules’). The impugned order was not a speaking order and while relying on these averments, it was submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside. After notice, the suit was contested by the defendant with averments that the order of General Manager, Punjab Roadways was valid, legal and constitutional. The inquiry was conducted according to the Rules. The plaintiff was afforded reasonable opportunity and the order was legal and a speaking order. The trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the order dated 20.2.1984 whereby the services of the plaintiff were terminated, is illegal, unconstitutional? OPP. 2. Relief.” Trial Court decided this issue against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The appellate Court further re-affirmed the finding of the trial Court and held that from the evidence placed on record it was abundantly clear that the appellant did not issue the tickets to the passengers from whom he charged the money and finding no infirmity with the finding of the trial Court dismissed his appeal. Aggrieved from this order, the appellant-Ghamghaur Singh came in appeal. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant when R.S.A. No.2060 of 1988 [3] this case was taken up. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State and have gone through the records of the case carefully. In the grounds of appeal, it has been mentioned that the punishing authority passed the impugned order after considering the past record of the appellant without affording any opportunity to the appellant in this regard and as such the impugned order was liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that no statement of any passenger has been recorded at the time of checking of the bus or during the inquiry. Under these circumstances, the impugned order could not be passed just on hearsay evidence of the Inspectors alone. Accordingly, it has been prayed that in absence of any documentary evidence having been supplied to the appellant, this appeal was liable to be accepted. No substantial question of law seems to have been framed in this case. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellant has been afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry proceedings and there is no iota of evidence that principles of natural justice have been violated in this case. Normally, the Courts should not interfere in the inquiry proceedings as the Court is not to sit in judgment over the findings of the Inquiry Officer and scope of interference of the Court is limited to the extent that it is to see that the principles of natural justice have been followed and proper procedure has been adopted during the course of inquiry. However, the Courts can interfere in the findings of the Inquiry Officer if there is flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and R.S.A. No.2060 of 1988 [4] the same are passed upon no evidence whatsoever. Under these circumstances, the order of termination of services of the appellant was rightly held to be legal by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have dealt the factual and legal position governing the case of the plaintiff- appellant in great detail. In the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. September 16, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*