Regular Second Appeal No.908 of 1996(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 908 of 1996 (O&M) Date of Decision: August 06, 2009 Punjab State Electricity Board ...........Appellant Versus Smt Mantripat Kaur ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Saurabh Goel, Advocate for Mr.Govind Goel,Advocate the appellants. Mr.R.A.Ram, Senior Advocate with Mr.Nikhil Chopra, Advocate for the respondent ** Sabina, J. Plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration. The suit of the plaintiffs was allowed by the Senior Sub Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 8.9.1993. Aggrieved by the same, defendant preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed with the modification, that if the plaintiff had remained absent from duty without leave for any period before 3.5.1990, the Board may apply the principle of `No work No pay' to her case and, however, for the period from 3.5.1990 till her actual reinstatement in service, she would be entitled to full pay and allowances and other rights and benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum, by the Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.1995. Hence, the present appeal. The brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge in paras 2 and 3 of its judgment, reads as under:- Regular Second Appeal No.908 of 1996(O&M) 2 1. “2. The respondent filed a civil suit against the appellant for a decree for declaration to the effect that the office order No.650/E.N.G./A-2935 dated 3.5.1990 passed by the Under Secretary (Estt.) whereby she had been illegally removed from the post of Upper Division Clerk, was illegal, null and void, ultra vires, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice in-operative, against the rules and regulations governing the service of the respondent and that notwithstanding the said illegal order, the respondent was entitled to continue in service with all rights and benefits including the release of pay and allowances along with interest @ 18% per annum, seniority and promotion which she would have enjoyed/drawn, had the impugned order never been passed. It was uncontroverted that the respondent was appointed as Upper Division Clerk by the Secretary of the Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and that she was permanent employee of the Board. She was charge sheeted vide office order No.1595-ENG/A-2935 dated 3.5.1989 on the false allegations. An Inquiry officer was appointed vide order No.2826 dated 11.10.1989, who after a faked inquiry, submitted his enquiry report. The respondent was served with a show cause notice vide memo No.19 dated 22.3.1990, She submitted the reply explaining the entire factual position and denying the allegations levelled against her. However, she was served with the office Order No.650/ENG-A/2935 dated 3.5.1990, whereby she had been illegally removed from service from the post of Upper Division Clerk. This order was Regular Second Appeal No.908 of 1996(O&M) 3 challenged by her as illegal, null and void, ultravires, unconstitutional against the principles of natural justice, in- operative and against the rules and regulations governing her services on the grounds stated in para 8 of the plaint. Among other things, it was pleaded by her that this order was penal in nature and that it was against the principles of natural justice. Copies of the relevant documents and the statements of the witnesses were not supplied t her, which was a mandatory requirement. The Inquiry Officer hd gone beyond the matters in controversy and the authority who had passed the impugned orer had passed this order on some extraneous considerations. She requested the appellant to withdraw this order but it was of no avail. Hence the instant suit. 3.The appellant-Punjab state Electricity Board contested this suit and challenged its maintainability. It denied all the material allegations of the appellant. It was, inter-alia, stated that the respondent had been intentionally and willfully absent from duty we.f. 3.8.1988. A regular Inquiry Officer was appointed to hold the inquiry in accordance with the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment and Appeal) Regulations, 1971 and he submitted his report. A show cause notice was served on the respondent and after considering her reply, the impugned order dated 3.5.1990, was passed and she was removed from service. This order was defended as perfectly valid and constitutional being in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the rules and regulations governing the services of the respondent. Regular Second Appeal No.908 of 1996(O&M) 4 All other material allegations of the respondent were stoutly controverted. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “i) Whether the order dated 3.5.1990 passed by the Under Secretary (Estt.) vide which the plaintiff was removed from service is illegal, null and void?OPP ii) Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD iii) Relief.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff had challenged the order of removal of her service dated 3.5.1999. Admittedly, plaintiff was given due opportunity to present her case in the inquiry proceedings. However, the plaintiff was not supplied a copy of the inquiry report along with show cause notice to enable her to submit an effective reply. DW1 Sat Pal admitted that no copy of the inquiry report was supplied to the plaintiff along with the show cause notice. He further admitted that no personal hearing was afforded to the plaintiff before passing of the impugned order dated 3.5.1999. He further admitted that the Under Secretary and Deputy Secretary are subordinates to the Secretary. Exhibit D1 is the appointment letter of the plaintiff issued by the Secretary, Punjab State Electricity Board (for short `PSEB') on the post of officiating Upper Division Clerk. The impugned order of removal of the petitioner was passed by the Under Secretary (Estt.) for Secretary PSEB Patiala. Thus, it is evident that the order of removal was not passed by the Regular Second Appeal No.908 of 1996(O&M) 5 appointing authority. Moreover, no reasons have been given as to why the reply submitted by the plaintiff was not found to be satisfactory. Plaintiff was also denied the opportunity of personal hearing. Thus, principles of natural justice have not been complied with by the defendants in this case. In these circumstances, the Courts below had rightly held that the order of removal passed by the defendants was liable to be set aside. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff was rightly decreed. No substantial question of law arises in this case which would warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge August 06, 2009 arya