Regular Second Appeal No. 2258 of 1985 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2258 of 1985 Date of Order: 20.10.2008 State of Punjab and another ...Appellants Versus Shri Ajit Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. H.S.Gill, DAG, Punjab, for the appellants. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The State of Punjab, challenges judgments and decrees passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Jalandhar, dated 31.05.1983 and the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, dated 19.02.1985, whereby the suit filed by the respondent was decreed and the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent while working as a conductor with the Jalandhar Depot of Punjab Roadways was served with the charge-sheet dated 04.09.1980, alleging failure on his part to issue tickets to passengers though he had received the fare. The plaintiff-respondent filed a reply to the charge-sheet, but as his reply was found unsatisfactory an enquiry was ordered. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the plaintiff- respondent was served with a show cause notice and was thereafter dismissed from service on 04.05.1981. The appeal filed before the Director State Transport, Punjab, was dismissed on 16.02.1982. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit challenging the order of his dismissal from service and the order of dismissal of his appeal. The main grounds of challenge to the departmental proceedings are that the original complaint was not appended with the documents accompanying the Regular Second Appeal No. 2258 of 1985 -2- charge-sheet, due opportunity was not granted to file a reply/cross examine the witnesses or to produce evidence and his request to allow the assistance of a co-worker was refused. The appellants opposed the suit by denying the assertions in the plaint. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether impugned orders dated 04.05.1981 and 16.02.1982 are illegal, arbitrary and null and void etc. as and for reasons alleged in the plaint ?OPP 2. Relief. After an appraisal of the pleadings, the evidence adduced, and the arguments addressed, the trial court decreed the suit by holding that the enquiry, the order of punishment passed and the order passed in appeal were vitiated as the respondent was not allowed the services of a co-worker. The trial court placed reliance upon a letter, addressed by the respondent to the appellants requesting the services of a co-worker. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment, the State of Punjab filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellants submits that , though, both the trial Court and the first appellate Court have returned concurrent findings of fact that the respondent was not allowed the services of a co-worker, the order of punishment and the order passed by the appellate authority, could not have been set aside by the courts below without the respondent establishing that the absence of assistance by a co-worker had caused serious prejudice, in defending the charges levelled. It is further submitted that the impugned judgments and decrees are based upon an erroneous Regular Second Appeal No. 2258 of 1985 -3- understanding of service jurisprudence, as mere violation of rules does not vitiate departmental proceedings. A delinquent official can only succeed if he establishes a degree of prejudice sufficient to hold substantial infringement of his right to effectively defend the charges levelled against him. As a result, counsel for the appellants submits that a substantial question of law arises for consideration namely:- whether departmental proceedings can be set aside on the plea that the services of a co-worker not provided to the delinquent official establishes prejudice, in his defence to the charges levelled against him. Despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. As noticed in the narrative of facts, both the courts below have returned concurrent findings of fact that despite a written request, the respondent was not allowed the assistance of a co-worker. These concurrent findings have not been impugned, whether in the grounds accompanying the memorandum of appeal or in the arguments addressed. The only argument, as is apparent from the substantial question of law framed, is that the courts below could not have quashed enquiry, the order of dismissal and the order passed in appeal, without recording a finding that by disallowing the services of a co-worker to the respondent serious prejudice was caused to the respondent, in his defence to the charges levelled against him. The principle underlying the substantial questions of law framed,is to well settled to warrant reiteration. The rules that govern the procedure of departmental proceedings are both mandatory and directory. Failure to adhere to mandatory rules or any deviation there from would vitiate a departmental enquiry but where the rules are procedural or directory, then violation, even if established, would only result in negation of the enquiry proceedings and the order of punishment, if the delinquent Regular Second Appeal No. 2258 of 1985 -4- establishes prejudice to his right to defend the proceedings initiated against him. In such a situation, before it proceeds to set aside departmental proceedings a court would be required to satisfy itself that the violation of the rules alleged has occasioned serious prejudice, to the delinquent official in his defence to the charges levelled against him. In the instant case, both the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court have held that the appellant sent a letter requesting for the assistance of a co-worker but the services of a co-worker were not provided, leading to serious prejudice to the delinquent official a bus conductor in his defence to the charges levelled against him, who was not conversant to rules and regulations. These findings of fact are neither factually nor legally perverse and, therefore, do not call for interference. In fact no argument has been urged to impugn these findings of fact. Consequently, as denial of services of a co-worker cause serious prejudice to the respondent, in his defence to departmental proceedings, the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are upheld and the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 20.10.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE