RSA No. 2232 of 1985 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 2232 of 1985 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 defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the suit filed by the respondent was partly decreed and the punishment of minimum of the time scale for a limited period of five years was substituted. The plaintiff-respondent was charge-sheeted and vide order dated 17.9.1979, a punishment of reduction to the minimum of the time scale for a period of five years with cumulative effect and with consequential relief that he would not be entitled to all benefit of service including pay and other allowances. The said order was challenged by the plaintiff before the Civil Court in the present suit for declaration, inter- alia, on the ground that such order is in violation of the service Rules and is not a speaking order. It was also alleged that the RSA No. 2232 of 1985 (2) charge-sheet is vague and is not based on any material and that the inquiry was conducted in violation of the service Rules and is against the principles of natural justice. During the course of evidence, the inquiry file was produced as Exhibit P.1. The plaintiff examined himself as PW2. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the arguments raised by the plaintiff are unfounded. It was found that the plaintiff has cross-examined the prosecution witnesses at length and that signatures of the plaintiff in all the proceedings verify that he has availed of the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses. However, in appeal, the learned first Appellate Court, found that after conclusion of the inquiry proceedings, a show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff as to why he should not be brought down to the minimum of the time scale for a period of 10 years. A reply was filed by the plaintiff pleading guilty to the charge framed against. However, subsequently, the plaintiff retracted from his reply. Another show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff as to why he be not removed from service and why he be not deprived of his pay beyond the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. In view of the said fact, the learned first Appellate Court found that there is an element of bias in the conduct of the proceedings by the Punishing Authority and thus, the suit was partly decreed to the effect that the plaintiff will remain at the minimum of the time scale for a period of 5 years and after the expiry of the period of 5 years, previous increments would be released to him, even for the period during which he remained in the minimum of the time scale. While admitting the present appeal, no interim RSA No. 2232 of 1985 (3) order was granted in favour of the appellant. Though the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in substituting the punishment is restricted, but in the facts of the present case, I do not find that any substantial question arises for consideration, which may warrant interference in the decree passed. It is apparent from the record that earlier a show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff for being brought down to the minimum of time scale for a period of 10 years, but after the plaintiff retracted from his admission, another show cause notice was issued for proposed enhancement of the punishment for removal of service. The said conduct shows an element of bias in the mind of the Punishing Authority. Thus, I find that the substitution of the punishment does not require any interference at this stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 04-07-2008 (HEMANT GUPTA) ds JUDGE