Regular Second Appeal No.1894 of 1986. -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No.1894 of 1986. Date of decision:27-2-2008 Gurdish Singh. ...Appellant. Versus Punjab State and another. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present; Ms. Swati Gupta Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Yatender Sharma, DAG Punjab. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. The plaintiff being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 27.1.1986 passed by the then Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which he accepted the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 1.12.1984 delivered by the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Pathankot, has filed the instant appeal. The facts which are culled out from the judgment of Lower Court are that the plaintiff worked as a Conductor in the Punjab Regular Second Appeal No.1894 of 1986. -2- Roadways with effect from 21.11.1970 to 20.6.1983 when he was removed from service. He was governed by the Punjab Roadways Operational (State Service) Class III Services Rules, 1977 as well as Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1973. He had challenged the validity and legality of the impugned order on the grounds that the charge sheet was issued to him on the basis of suspicion; that the documents on the basis of which charge sheet was framed were never shown to him either before the enquiry or during the course of enquiry proceedings; that his reply to the charge sheet was not considered at all; that the Enquiry Officer was not competent to conduct the enquiry; that the Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry as per rules; that the Enquiry Officer himself played the role of Prosecutor; that he was not allowed the assistance of legal practitioner or a Government servant; that there was no evidence against him during the enquiry; that he was not allowed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses at length; that the Enquiry Officer did not record his defence statement according to service rules; that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on no legal evidence; that the show cause notice issued to him was also illegal and that the reply submitted by him was not considered. It is further pleaded that he also served the defendants with a notice under Section 80 CPC but to no effect. Therefore, he was constrained to file a suit for a declaration to the effect that order passed Regular Second Appeal No.1894 of 1986. -3- by defendant No.2, vide his endorsement Nos.3992-94 ST/GM dated 20.6.1983, regarding his removal from service was illegal, null and void, ineffective, against the principles of natural justice, in violation of service rules, cryptic, unwarranted, without jurisdiction, mala fide and non speaking with the consequential relief that he was entitled to all the benefits of service including pay and other allowances. On notice, the defendants contested the suit and also filed joint written statement taking up preliminary objection that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit being an industrial worker. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiff was ex-Conductor and his remaining allegations were denied. It was specifically maintained that the impugned order passed against the plaintiff was perfectly legal and valid. On the pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1.Whether the impugned order is illegal and void, against service rules and principles of natural justice as alleged?OPP. 2.Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?OPD. 3.Relief. The learned trial Court decided issue No.1 against the plaintiff. Issue No.2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. As a Regular Second Appeal No.1894 of 1986. -4- consequence of said findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 1.12.1984. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal. The then Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide impugned judgment and decree dated 27.1.1986 set aside the impugned judgment and decree but held that the absence of the plaintiff shall not count towards pay etc. During that period, the plaintiff shall be considered as on leave of the kind admissible, if any, or without pay on the principle of 'No work, no pay'. The department was also given liberty to initiate fresh action against the plaintiff on previous allegations, according to rules, if so desired. The plaintiff, still feeling dis-satisfied has preferred the instant appeal. The State of Punjab has filed Cross Objections and both the appeal and the Cross-Objections are being disposed of with this common judgment. I have heard arguments of counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. From the submissions made by both sides, the following questions of law are formulated:- 1.Whether the charge sheet issued by the Traffic Manager holding the charge of General Manager is valid? 2.Whether the first Appellate Court was right in holding Regular Second Appeal No.1894 of 1986. -5- that the absence of the plaintiff shall not count towards pay and shall be treated as leave of the kind due? So far as the fact that Traffic Manager holding the charge of General Manager was not competent to issue charge sheet is concerned, the same finds support from authority State of Punjab and another Versus Baldev Singh,96(4) Recent Services Judgments 780. It is an admitted case of the parties that the Traffic Manager was holding the charge of General Manager on ad hoc basis. So, the first Appellate Court has rightly held that charge sheet has not been issued by the competent authority and on that count the proceedings against the plaintiff were bad. So far as the second question of law, raised during the course of arguments, that the period of absence should be counted as period on duty is concerned, that submission is without any substance. The principle of “no work no pay” has been taken into account. The department has been given liberty to initiate fresh action against the plaintiff on the previous allegations and the plaintiff has not been exonerated by the Court below. In view of the above discussion, point No.1 stands determined in favour of the plaintiff. However, point No.2 formulated above stands answered against the plaintiff/respondent. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal and the Cross Objections are without any merit and the same stand dismissed. Regular Second Appeal No.1894 of 1986. -6- Decree sheet be prepared. The files of the Courts below be returned after due compliance. This file be consigned to the Record Room. February 27,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge