R.S.A. No.2095 of 1986. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No.2095 of 1986. Date of decision: State of Punjab and another. ...Appellants. Versus Anokh Singh ...Respondent. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present; Mr. Jatinder Sharma, DAG Punjab for the appellants. None for the respondent. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. The instant appeal here is by the defendants seeking to challenge the judgment and decree dated 1.2.1986 passed by the then Additional District Judge, Amritsar whereby the appeal of the plaintiff/respondent was accepted. The judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed. The necessary facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff was working as a Conductor in the Punjab R.S.A. No.2095 of 1986. -2- Roadways. Being a civil servant, he was entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. His services were terminated in terms of order dated 24.7.1980 passed by defendant No.1. He filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that the order of termination of his services was wrong, illegal, cryptic, without jurisdiction,against rules and thus inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff/respondent. A charge-sheet was issued to him which was defective, vague, indefinite and illegal. It did not convey the entire material nor it disclosed the witnesses or documents by virtue of which the department proposed to substantiate the charges. The material on the basis of which charges were framed was not supplied to him despite verbal and written requests. He was not supplied the list of witnesses. He had submitted reply to the charge- sheet but his reply was not considered. Inquiry was conducted by an officer who was subordinate to General Manager and was otherwise not competent to hold the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer has based his findings on extraneous matters. The important witness was not examined during the course of inquiry which has resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity to him. There were instructions by the department that when the passengers were found without tickets and the Conductor had collected fare from them then the Checking Staff should record the statements of such passengers but these instructions have been violated in the present case as the statement of none of the passengers was recorded. He was not supplied with the copy of report made by the Inspector. The Punishing Authority pre-judged the guilt in R.S.A. No.2095 of 1986. -3- the charge-sheet. The show cause notice issued to him was illegal, defective and vague. The Punishing Authority proposed to inflict punishment without applying its mind to the facts of the case. The statements of the witnesses recorded during the inquiry did not prove any case against him. His cash was not checked at any stage. The passengers who were said to have been found without tickets were most material witnesses but they have not been examined. The reasoning given by the Inquiry Officer that as the plaintiff has not been able to rebut the charges so the charges stand proved against him is not based on law and rules. The defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was admitted that the plaintiff was in the employment of Punjab Roadways, Tarn Taran. It was also admitted that his services were terminated on 24.7.1980. It was further admitted that there were instructions from the department that the statements of passengers found without tickets, should be recorded. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court;- 1.Whether the impugned order dated 24.7.1980 is illegal, void, ultra vires etc.?OPP. 2. Whether the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?OPD. 3. Relief. R.S.A. No.2095 of 1986. -4- The learned trial Court decided issue No.1 in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiff. Issue No.2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. As a result of said findings, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 10.5.1984 passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was accepted by the then learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide impugned judgment and decree dated 1.2.1986. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. I have heard arguments addressed by Sh. Jatinder Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab at length and have gone through the record of the case. The following question of law has been formulated:- 1)Whether the finding of the Appellate Court regarding non-compliance of Rule 14 (11) could be set aside? Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the learned Ist Appellate Court has set aside the order of trial Court only on the ground that enquiry proceedings file does not show that any order as required under Rule 14 (11) of the Rules was passed by him. Reliance was placed on the authority 1983 (1) S.L.R. 32. It is submitted that non-compliance of Rule 14 (11) does not vitiate the enquiry. It depends upon the set of each circumstances of the case whether non-compliance of Rule 14 (11) vitiate the enquiry. It is submitted that in the present case non-compliance of Rule 14 (11) does not vitiate enquiry. R.S.A. No.2095 of 1986. -5- I have carefully considered the said submission and have gone through the record of the case. Non-compliance of Rule 14 (11) by the Enquiry Officer may or may not vitiate enquiry. It depends upon the circumstances of each of the case whether the non-compliance of Rule 14 (11) vitiate the enquiry or not. The learned Ist Appellate Court has given a finding that in the present case, non-compliance of Rule 14 (11) vitiate the enquiry. That being a finding of fact cannot be interfered in the Regular Second Appeal. Moreover, the same is supported by the judgment of the High court reported as 1983 (1) SLR 32. The punishment was awarded in the year 1980. The appeal of the complainant was accepted on 1.2.1986. Unsettling the said position after such a long period would be against the principles of natural justice. So, no interference is required in the judgment of the learned trial Court on that account also. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) February 4 2008 Judge Jaggi/chug