RSA No. 1558 of 1994 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1558 of 1994 Date of Decision: 14.10.09 1. Food Corporation of India, having Regional Office Punjab, Chandigarh, through Senior Regional Manager, Punjab Chandigarh. 2. District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Patiala. ... Appellants Versus Sudesh Kumar Garg son of Sh. Ruldu Ram, H. No. 4511/2, Chhatta Nanu Mal, Patiala. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Dinesh Bagga, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Manuk Bhandari, Advocate, for the respondent. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal, is directed, against the judgment and decree, dated 06.03.93, rendered by the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Patiala, vide which, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff, and, the judgement and decree dated 07.02.94, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which, it dismissed the appeal. 2. Sudesh Kumar Garg, plaintiff/respondent, was appointed, RSA No. 1558 of 1994 2 as Watchman, by the Food Corporation of India, on 08.11.1971. Subsequently, he was promoted, from Class IV, to Class III post, on the basis of Matriculation Certificate. The office of the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, served a memorandum dated 20.08.1985, on him, levelling a charge, that he had applied for promotion, from Class IV to Class III post, on the basis of fake Matriculation Certificate. Sh. D.S.Bhatia was appointed as Inquiry Officer. It was stated that the Inquiry Officer, did not conduct the enquiry, in accordance with the prescribed procedure, nor did he record any evidence. It was further stated that after conducting the inquiry, against the plaintiff, the Inquiry Officer, submitted his report, holding him guilty, on the basis whereof, the District Manager, vide his order dated 25.03.1997, imposed the punishment of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect w.e.f. 01.01.1989, upon him. The Senior Regional Manager of the Food Corporation of India, served a notice dated 25.07.1987, upon the plaintiff, directing him, to show cause, as to why, the punishment, may not be enhanced. The plaintiff, submitted his written reply to the same. But the Senior Regional Manager, vide his order dated 24.02.1988, imposed the penalty of dismissal, from service, upon the plaintiff. It was further stated that the allegations levelled against, the plaintiff, were vague. It was further stated that the Inquiry Officer, had not been appointed by a competent authority. Even no inquiry worth the name was conducted. The report of the Inquiry Officer was based on surmises, conjectures, and no evidence. It was further stated that the plaintiff, was never proceeded RSA No. 1558 of 1994 3 against exparte. It was further stated that the plaintiff, was not supplied the chargesheet, nor the relevant documents. It was further stated that the entire proceedings, against him, were illegal and against the service rules. It was further stated that the Senior Regional Manager, had no authority to review the order of the District Manager, or to enhance the punishment. It was further stated that the order of the Senior Regional Manager was excessively harsh and disproportionate to the alleged delinquency, committed by the plaintiff. The orders of punishment were challenged as illegal and void. The defendants, were many a time requested, to treat the orders impugned, as illegal, but to no avail. On their final refusal, left with no alternative, a suit for declaration, was filed. 3. The defendants, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, they took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was denied that the chargesheet or the relevant documents, were not supplied, to the plaintiff, or the Inquiry Officer, had not been appointed, by a competent authority. It was stated that the inquiry, had been conducted, by the Inquiry Officer strictly, in accordance with the provisions of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971. It was further stated that the plaintiff attended the inquiry proceedings, on 20.3.86, 27.3.86 and 1.4.86, respectively. It was further stated that, thereafter, he evaded attending the inquiry proceedings, despite notices, as a result whereof, he was proceeded against exparte, and the Inquiry Officer, submitted his exparte report, against him. It was further stated that the inquiry report, and the order, dated 25.03.87, RSA No. 1558 of 1994 4 passed by the District Manager, and the order dated 24.02.88, passed by the Senior Regional Manager, were legal, valid, and binding, on the plaintiff. It was further stated that the orders, had been passed, in accordance with the Service Regulations. It was further stated that the plaintiff, had not intentionally produced the matriculation certificate, despite repeated warnings. On verification from the Punjab School Education Board, it was found that, the matriculation certificate, on the basis whereof, the plaintiff, had obtained promotion, from Class IV to Class III post, was fake. It was further stated that the Civil Court, had no jurisdiction, to try and entertain the suit. It was further stated that the suit was not maintainable. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- (i) Whether the impugned orders dated 25.03.87 of defendant No. 2 District Manager and dated 24.02.88 of the Senior Regional Manager are illegal, null and void without jurisdiction alleged in the plaint? OPP (ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for? OPP (iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP (iv) Whether no cause of action occurred at Patiala to the plaintiff, and as such Civil Court at Patiala has got no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD (v) Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD RSA No. 1558 of 1994 5 (vi) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the defendants/appellants, which was dismissed, by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 07.02.94. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendants/appellants. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through and perused the documents, on record, carefully. 9. The following substantial question of law arises, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court:- Whether the Courts below, on account of misreading and misappreciation of evidence, recorded perverse findings that it was a case of no evidence, and the order impugned was illegal and void? 10. The Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the Courts below, were wrong, in coming to the conclusion, that it was a case of no evidence, and, as such, the order of punishment, was illegal and invalid. He further submitted that the plaintiff/respondent, did not participate, in the inquiry proceedings, and he was proceeded against ex-parte. He further submitted that, two documents, supplied by the department, during the course of inquiry, were acted upon, by the Inquiry Officer, and he submitted the inquiry report, on the basis RSA No. 1558 of 1994 6 whereof, the order of punishment, was passed. He further submitted that, on the basis of fake matriculation certificate, the plaintiff/respondent, obtained promotion. He further submitted that, as such, the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, submitted that, even if, the plaintiff/respondent, was ex-parte, in the inquiry proceedings, some evidence, was required to be produced, in accordance with the provisions of law, rules and regulations, during the course of inquiry, and only, on the basis thereof, the Inquiry Officer, could submit the inquiry report, holding the delinquent guilty. He further submitted that the documents, which were produced, by the department, before the Inquiry Officer, were not proved, by summoning the witnesses, and, as such, the same did not constitute the legally admissible evidence, and, therefore, the same, could not be acted upon. He further submitted that, even the Presenting Officer, was not called, to produce the evidence, during the course of inquiry. He further submitted that there was clear-cut violation of Regulation 58 (II) of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971, and, as such, the Courts below, were right, in coming to the conclusion, that the order of punishment, was illegal. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being legal and valid, were liable to be upheld. 12. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered RSA No. 1558 of 1994 7 opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the trial Court, and the first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous as the legislative intention was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. It is evident, from the record, that the plaintiff, did not appear, before the Inquiry Officer upto 23.04.86. He was proceeded against ex-parte. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer, closed the proceedings, and submitted the following inquiry report:- “Since the case has not been defended by the C.O; the Enquiry Officer had to depend on the material supplied by the (Prosecution Side). The P.O has submitted photostat copies as under:- 1. Matriculation Certificate 2. Copy of representation for promotion from Class IV to Class III. 3. Original Letter No. PSEB- VSO/General/442 dated 23.01.85 RSA No. 1558 of 1994 8 from the Secretary, Punjab School Education Board, SAS Nagar (Mohali). In face of letter No. PSEB-VSO- 1985/General/442 dated 23.01.1985 it is evidence beyond doubt that Certificate bearing No. 177763 will Roll No. 87884 which was submitted by the charge official for getting promotion is not genuine moreover, the charged official has failed to prove his innocence by giving any defence evidence. The charge of negligent conduct, malafide intention and ulterior motive are therefore proved against him.” 13. The perusal of the inquiry report, extracted above, clearly goes to show that, no evidence, whatsoever, was recorded, by the Inquiry Officer, during the course of inquiry. It is, no doubt true, that charges in the departmental proceedings, are not required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as in a criminal case, or, on the preponderance of evidence, as, in a civil case. But there must be some legally admissible evidence, before the Inquiry Officer, on the basis whereof, he can act, to come to the conclusion, that the charges, against the delinquent, were proved. It was a case of no evidence. The mere fact that photocopies of certain documents, were submitted, before the Inquiry Officer, by the departmental officials, did not mean that those documents stood proved. The Inquiry Officer, was required to call the Presenting Officer, to produce the evidence, and prove those documents, in accordance with the provisions of law/rules. The charge, against the plaintiff/respondent, was that, he submitted the fake matriculation certificate, alongwith the application. That application, could be proved, by an official of the department, by identifying the RSA No. 1558 of 1994 9 signatures of the plaintiff, on the same. The Courts below, were, thus, right in holding, that the case, being of no evidence, the Inquiry Officer, was wrong, in holding the delinquent guilty of the charge levelled against him. The Courts below, were also right, in holding, that the order of punishment, copy whereof, is P3, was, illegal and liable to be set aside. 14. The concurrent findings of fact, recorded by the Courts below, on the aforesaid points, being based, on the correct reading and due appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and warrant no interference, by this Court. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below, are, thus, liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellants, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 15. The substantial question of law, depicted above, is answered, against the appellants. 16. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs. 14.10.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE