R.S.A. No.2860 of 1999 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... R.S.A. No.2860 of 1999 Date of Decision: December 01,2011 Raghbir Singh ... Appellant VERSUS The State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Mr.M.S. Rana, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Ranvir S.Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.03.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar whereby he accepted the appeal filed by the State of Punjab defendant-appellant by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Jalandhar. Consequently, the suit filed by respondent-plaintiff Raghbir Singh was dismissed with costs. The case of the plaintiff-respondent (appellant herein) is that he was working as a Conductor in Punjab Roadways, Depot No.II, Jalandhar. On 09.03.1994, an incident happened between plaintiff-respondent and the checkers. The plaintiff apprehending false R.S.A. No.2860 of 1999 2 report, made representation to the Transport Minister Punjab, which led to preliminary inquiry. On the basis of that inquiry, it was revealed that the checkers had made the report against the plaintiff on the basis of suspicion. Consequently, the General Manager charge-sheeted the plaintiff on 23.06.1996, which led to regular inquiry culminated into removal from service vide order dated 31.01.1996 passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Depot No.II, Jalandhar. However, the Appellate Authority forfeited his past service and ordered for re-employment in the service without any benefit of pay for the period he remained out of service. The plaintiff had challenged both the orders by way of Civil Suit for declaration. In written statement defendant-appellant (respondent herein) did not dispute the inquiry proceedings conducted against the plaintiff-respondent but pleaded that the inquiry as well as orders passed by the Authorities are quite legal. The pleadings of the parties culminated into trial of the suit on the basis of the following issues: “1. Whether the orders dated 31.01.1996 and 28.06.1996 are illegal and void?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for?OPP 3. Relief.” Both the parties did not produce any evidence but relied upon the inquiry file, which led to the passing of the aforesaid orders under challenge. Learned trial Court after scanning and scrutinizing the evidence led by both the parties and hearing them, decreed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and held both the orders dated 31.01.1996 and 28.06.1996 as illegal and void. R.S.A. No.2860 of 1999 3 Against the decision of the trial Court, the State of Punjab preferred an appeal which was allowed and suit of the plaintiff-respondent was dismissed with costs. Dis-satisfied with the decision of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, Raghbir Singh appellant-employee has filed the present appeal, which is now meant for disposal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The short question which requires for determination in this appeal is as to whether the Appellate Authority while exonerating the appellant of the charges still can order forfeiture of service. While arguing before me, learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the order dated 31.01.1996 passed by the General Manager vide which the appellant was removed from service and he has confined his argument only qua the order dated 28.06.1996 passed by the Divisional Manager, Transport Department, District Jalandhar whereby the order of Divisional Manager was set aside and the appellant was ordered to be re-employed in the service without any benefit of pay for the period he remained out of service. Learned counsel has laid stress that previous record of the appellant cannot be taken into consideration without offering him an opportunity. The appellant was not supplied the copy of the preliminary report but in this case the Appellate Authority has considered the previous record of the appellant while passing the order under challenge. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Mohd. Yunus Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others 2011(1) RSJ 45. On the other hand, learned State counsel for the R.S.A. No.2860 of 1999 4 respondent has argued that past conduct of an employee can be taken into account to substantiate the quantum of punishment without bringing it to the notice of the delinquent employee and the order passed by the Divisional Manager is legal. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by both the sides, I find that there is no fault in the order passed by the Divisional Manger by setting aside the order dated 31.01.1996 of General Manager and ordered re-employment of the employee. A perusal of the official file shows that in the charge-sheet there is not an iota of reference about the preliminary report and, as such, this copy was not necessary to be supplied to him. It is also noticed that the reply submitted by the appellant that the inquiry officer had exonerated him because of the report of the checker was found to be without any basis. Non-supplying the copy of the preliminary report has caused no prejudice to the appellant. So far as the second contention regarding past conduct of the employee is concerned, the Divisional Manager has passed the order of re-employment of the employee keeping in view that the appellant was deprived of non-supplying the copy of preliminary report. Even otherwise, the order could have been passed by the Divisional Manager by directing the General Manager to pass an appropriate order about the issuance of notice with regard to his past record. A perusal of the order passed by the Divisional Manger clearly shows that the appellant had pleaded before him that he was a poor person having number of family members to support and, as such, he may be given an opportunity to serve again. On account of the submissions made by the appellant, the Divisional Manager re-employed him on compassionate grounds. The case law cited as Mohd. Yunus Khan (supra) is not R.S.A. No.2860 of 1999 5 applicable to the facts of the case in hand as the past conduct of an employee can be taken into account while passing the order. The Divisional Manager considering the appellant to be a poor person having large number of family and giving undertaking that he will improve himself, ordered his re-employment. When punishment of forfeiture of earlier service rendered by the employee inflicted, it does not amount in the reduction of any rank. Learned First Appellate Court has rightly considered all facts of the case while dismissing the suit of the appellant. Conclusion drawn by the learned First Appellate Court contains complete reasoning. Under the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the judgment of the First Appellate Court which may give rise to any substantial question. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is maintained. Resultantly, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. December 01, 2011 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE