RSA No. 1618 of 1985 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 4.7.2008 The State of Punjab and another ......Appellants Versus Ved Parkash ....Respondent. Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Shri A.J.Jattana, Additional AG, Punjab, for the appellants. None for the respondent. 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? HEMANT GUPTA, J. The present Regular Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 14.4.1983, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the suit for declaration challenging the order of termination was decreed. In my opinion, the following substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal:- “Whether the Civil Court can appreciate evidence recorded before the Inquiry Officer in a suit for declaration challenging the order of punishment? RSA No. 1618 of 1985 (2) The plaintiff Harbahajan Singh, while working as a Conductor in the Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar was charge- sheeted on the ground of misconduct for not issuing full fare tickets to 12 passengers going from Shahkot to Lassuri and received Rs.1.75p as full fare from 2-1/2 passengers. Earlier, the plaintiff was put under suspension vide order dated 6.3.1978 and thereafter, an Inquiry Officer was appointed as the reply of the plaintiff to the charge-sheet was found unsatisfactory. The Inquiry Officer examined Jugal Kishore, Inspector; Harnam Singh, Inspector and Manohar Lal, Inspector in the presence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff cross- examined the witnesses and also produced one Narinder Singh in his defence. The Inquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence produced, returned a finding regarding proof of misconduct against the plaintiff and thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff as to why his services be not terminated. After considering the reply filed, the order dated 13.9.1978 was passed terminating the services of the plaintiff. The appeal against the said order was dismissed. It is, thereafter, that the plaintiff filed the present suit. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit after considering the arguments raised by the plaintiff. The trial Court placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and another v. Rattan Singh, 1977(1) SLR 750 and the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ram Cahnder, 1976(2) SLR 690. The learned first Appellate Court found that the Inquiry Officer, while discussing the evidence has only RSA No. 1618 of 1985 (3) observed that he has gone through the statements of PWs and there is no material discrepancy in the statements and and as such there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. It was further found that the Inquiry Officer has summarily brushed aside the defence version. The Inquiry Officer has prejudged the issue and the show cause notice has been issued with a biased mind. Consequently, the suit was decreed. It is well settled that in the disciplinary proceedings, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not that of an Appellate Court. In such proceedings the Civil Court is required to examine whether applicable Rules in respect of procedure of inquiry and the Rules of natural justice have been complied with. In the present case, three witnesses have been examined before the Inquiry Officer, in the presence of the delinquent. The delinquent was given opportunity to cross- examine the said witnesses. The said witnesses are Inspectors deputed to inspect the vehicles. Such statements have not been found to be discrepant in any manner by the Inquiry Officer. The version of the defence witness that one of the Inspectors was in a drunken condition and that a passenger fell on a woman, is wholly inconsequential. There was no reason for the inspecting staff to depose against the plaintiff in respect of the passengers found without tickets, especially in view of the statements of the passengers before the inspecting staff that they had paid the fare to the plaintiff. The Appellate Court has acted as the Court of appeal to appreciate the evidence led before the Inquiry Officer to return a finding that the statement of the defence witness could not have been discarded. The approach adopted by the learned first Appellate Court is not RSA No. 1618 of 1985 (4) tenable in law. The Civil Court is required to only examine the decision making process and not the conclusion by sifting the evidence as a Disciplinary Authority. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored. The suit is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 04-07-2008 (HEMANT GUPTA) ds JUDGE