IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.741 of 2008 Date of Decision: 21.10.2008 Shyam Lal .... Appellant versus Financial Commissioner & Chief Secretary & others .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla. Present: Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Rajive Bhalla, J (Oral) The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees dated 17.7.2006 and 4.6.2007, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, and by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad, dismissing his suit and appeal respectively. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for declaration claiming that order dated 8.10.2003 imposing a punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect is illegal and void by asserting that the appellant was not responsible for the lapse in not forwarding the document presented for registration to the Collector. It was further asserted that the inquiry officer did not grant adequate opportunity to the appellant to put forward his defence and the departmental proceedings were held in violation of the rules. The respondents opposed the suit by asserting that the appellant was responsible for the lapse in not forwarding the document presented for registration to the Collector, and was, therefore, rightly punished. Both the trial court as well as the first appellate court dismissed the suit and the appeal respectively. Counsel for the appellant submits that when the document was presented for registration the appellant was called into the chamber of Joint Sub-Registrar Hathin and instructed to hand over the original stamp paper to Babu Ram. The appellant informed the officer about deficiency of stamp RSA No.741 of 2008 -2- duty but he was told that under Rule 139 of the Rules, documents cannot be withheld. It was further submitted that the courts below failed to appreciate the fact that as the appellant was transferred on 26th March, 1998, the deficiency in stamp papers was to be examined by his successor, therefore, he could not be held liable. I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments. A perusal of the impugned judgments discloses that the courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact that the appellant was rightly punished and there was no defect in the procedure adopted by the inquiry officer or in the order of punishment. I find no reason whether in law or in fact to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. The onus to establish that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with law lay upon the appellant. As held by the courts below the appellant failed to summon the inquiry file or to place on record any material in support of his allegations that departmental proceedings suffered from any error. The submission by his counsel that the appellant had no option but to hand over the document was rightly rejected. Admittedly, the stamp duty was deficient but instead of referring the matter to the Collector the appellant returned the document to the executant. His defence that he was directed to do so by the Sub-Registrar remains unsubstantiated. The appellant's connivance is an attempt to evade stamp duty and therefore, rightly invited departmental proceedings and an order of punishment. As no question of law much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 21.10.2008 (Rajive Bhalla) sk Judge