Regular Second Appeal No.1192 of 1987 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: April 30, 2010 Baljinder Singh ...Appellant VERSUS Punjab State through Secretary Transport Department, Chandigarh & another. ...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.Virender Pal Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms.Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The appellant was serving as a Conductor in Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-II. He was removed from service on 31.1.1984. The appellant had challenged this order being illegal, ultra-vires, wrong and without jurisdiction etc. Claiming himself to be a civil Regular Second Appeal No.1192 of 1987 : 2 : servant and that he was entitled to the protection of general provisions of common law contained in Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules etc., the appellant had filed this suit challenging the order of his removal. The appellant was charge sheeted for having not issued tickets to some passengers. Appellant pleads that essential material on the basis of which the charge was framed was not supplied to him. He had further pleaded that the reply submitted to the charge sheet was not considered and that he was also not granted any personal hearing. It is also averred that though the Presenting Officer was detailed, but no co-worker was detailed to assist the appellant. He has submitted that the Enquiry Officer did not remain impartial and he being not conversant with the intricacies of the departmental enquiry proceedings, suffered a prejudice. Appellant, as such, had challenged the order dated 31.1.1984 to be wrong and illegal. The respondents contested the suit. In reply filed they challenged the jurisdiction of the civil court to go into this dispute. Other facts, like suspension and issuance of the charge sheet were admitted. It was stated that the charge sheet issued was legal and valid and all the necessary documents were supplied to the appellant, who was given full opportunity to defend himself. On the basis of pleadings, the Trial Court proceeded on the following issues:- “1. Whether the order dated 31.1.84 terminating the services of the plaintiff is liable to be set aside on the allegations made in the plaint, and the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for? OPP Regular Second Appeal No.1192 of 1987 : 3 : 2. Whether this court has got no jurisdiction in the matter? OPD 3. Relief. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court against which the appellant filed an appeal which was also dismissed. He has accordingly filed this Regular Second Appeal. Counsel for the appellant has made three-fold submission to challenge the impugned judgments. The counsel submits that co- worker was not provided to the appellant and he, thus, suffered a prejudice on this count. Second ground of attack is that the finding was based on no evidence as none of the passenger was examined and accordingly the finding returned by the Enquiry Officer cannot be sustained. Lastly, the counsel would contend that the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the allegations made and would call for interference on this ground. State counsel, however, would rebut all the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and would submit that due opportunities were afforded to the appellant and the appellant fully defended him and that no interference is called for. I have perused the record of this case and also the enquiry proceedings. The appellant had filed a detailed reply to the allegations made against him. The reply is not something which seems to have been prepared by a person not conversant with the rules or procedure. The appellant had pleaded that the copy of the report, which was made against him and list of witnesses were not supplied to him. He had also challenged the charge sheet on the ground that it was vague. The appellant had also sought personal Regular Second Appeal No.1192 of 1987 : 4 : hearing. It is, thus, obvious that the appellant was fully aware of his rights and had pleaded for grant of all opportunities. The perusal of the enquiry proceedings would also show that the appellant had cross-examined the witnesses produced in this case in detail. One of the question addressed to the witness was whether the person, who was travelling in the bus, was found inside the bus or outside. In response to the same, the witness had replied that the passenger was travelling inside the bus. The nature and manner in which the defence was conducted by the appellant would give an indication that he was fully alive to the legal and factual issues and did not suffer any prejudice due to the fact that he was not having the assistance of co-worker. Counsel also could not point out anything from the record to show that the appellant was not conversant with the rules for which his defence suffered a prejudice. There is nothing on record to show that he had prayed for co-worker being detailed to defend him during the enquiry. No such record is pointed out. Though the authorities concerned may also be expected to detail an officer as a co-worker to assist an employee during the enquiry, but the delinquent employee can always choose to defend himself. To my mind, no prejudice had been caused to the appellant on this ground. I am also not prepared to accept the submission that it is a case of no evidence. Reference has been made to the enquiry proceedings where the witnesses were examined. Merely because the passengers, who were found to be travelling without tickets, were not examined would not mean that it is a case of no evidence. In this regard, reference can be made to the case of State of Haryana and Regular Second Appeal No.1192 of 1987 : 5 : others Vs. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has viewed that when the Inspector is examined, it would be a case of some evidence and such a case cannot be termed as a case of no evidence merely because no passenger was examined as witness. The counsel has not been able to make good this submission in any manner. I am equally unimpressed with the submission that the punishment is disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the allegations made. The charge of embezzlement on the part of a conductor cannot be viewed lightly. The counsel could not point out that any valid material was ignored or any material was considered which could not be legally considered by the authorities. Merely because one would view that the punishment to be disproportionate would not make it so. The punishment cannot be termed as such, which would shock the conscious of a man. The same plea is accordingly rejected. As a result, there is no merit in the Regular Second Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. April 30, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE