Regular Second Appeal No. 3282 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3282 of 1986 Date of decision: 26.03.2010 Municipal Corporation, Amritsar ...Appellant Versus Onkar Nath and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. T.S. Gujral, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. RANJIT SINGH J. Onkar Nath was working as Conductor with Municipal Corporation, Amritsar when this punishment was meted to him. He had joined the services of the Punjab Roadways in the year 1956 as Conductor. He would aver that due to some false and frivolous complaints, there was some break in service but from the year 1967, he was continuously in the service of defendant-Corporation. Plea further is that during this period, he was not allowed certain increments and on inquiries made, he used to be put off by the staff. With effect from 01.01.1980 his services were transferred to Municipal Corporation Transport, Amritsar. Respondent-plaintiff had accordingly impugned order dated 05.02.1980 passed by the General Manager stopping his ten increments with cumulative effect, to be without jurisdiction. His plea was that before imposing this penalty, the respondent-plaintiff was not provided any opportunity to defend his case. His plea further is that the Corporation authorities Regular Second Appeal No. 3282 of 1986 2 did not go into the validity of order dated 05.02.1980 and except this order no other order was conveyed to the respondent-plaintiff. These orders were termed to be arbitrary and in contravention of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'). As per the respondent-plaintiff, he learnt about these order only on 05.02.1983 and, therefore, cause of action arose to him to file the suit. The defendant-Municipal Corporation contested the suit. It was pleaded that the suit was not maintainable and the claim made in the suit was not within time. On merits, it was pleaded that some increments of the respondent-plaintiff were stopped due to misconduct on his part. It is also disclosed that these increments were stopped by General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar before the transfer of the respondent-plaintiff to the Corporation. It is stated that these orders were legal and valid and were not passed by the Corporation. Accordingly, it was prayed that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of pleading, which was subsequently amended, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the Plaintiff is serving as a conductor since 1967, as alleged in the plaintiff? OPP. 2. Issue No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to all the increments and other benefits as admissible under rules since the year 1967? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is within time? OPP. 4. Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiff does not disclose any cause of Regular Second Appeal No. 3282 of 1986 3 action?OPD. 6. Relief. After recording the evidence, issues No. 1, 4 and 5 were decided in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and the remaining issues were decided against him. The suit was dismissed with costs. Feeling aggrieved the same, the respondent-plaintiff filed an appeal which was partly allowed by the First Appellate Court. Impugned order dated 05.02.1980 has been upheld to be valid whereby stoppage of 10 increments with cumulative effect was passed against the respondent-plaintiff. The First Appellant Court, however, has held that previous orders stopping the increment on 25.02.1969, 12.06.1974, 23.01.1975 and two orders of 11.05.1976 were never communicated to the respondent-plaintiff. These orders were accordingly set aside. The respondent-plaintiff also felt aggrieved against these orders passed by the First Appellate Court and has filed the separate appeal which is Regular Second Appeal No. 3047 of 1986 and is listed together for disposal with the present appeal filed by the Municipal Corporation. Counsel for the appellant would contend that the well- reasoned judgment given by the trial Court has wrongly been interfered with by the First Appellate Court while setting aside the order stopping the increment passed prior to 05.02.1980. The only reason which has weighed with the First Appellate Court to set aside this order is that this was not communicated. Reference is made to Rule 22 of the rules, which regulates the manner of service on a government employee. It was noticed that the order passed was either required to be served personally on an employee or through Regular Second Appeal No. 3282 of 1986 4 registered post and there is no other mode prescribed in this regard. It has been found as a fact that there is no evidence of communication of the previous punitive orders which is 25.02.1969 and 11.05.1976. It was noticed that only the last order i.e. 05.02.1980 was found communicated on which there is an endorsement in the hand of the appellant that he had received a copy of the order. This order was thus taken to have been communicated to the respondent-plaintiff and on this basis the punishment awarded to the respondent-plaintiff on 05.02.1980 was upheld. The suit was concededly filed on 15.06.1983. Suit was also held time barred. Aggrieved against this, the respondent-plaintiff has filed the appeal on the ground that this view is not correct. No one has appeared in support of the appeal or to defend the impugned order challenged by the Municipal Corporation. In my view, the view taken by the First Appellate Court is just and fair and would not call for any interference. Dismissed. MARCH 26, 2010 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE