Regular Second Appeal No.730 of 2008 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: February 17, 2010 Rajinder ...Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Jitender Nara, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Deepak Jindal, DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Very minor issue is involved in this Regular Second Appeal and it concerns the treatment of period of service of the appellant from 26.7.2000 to 6.9.2000. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant-plaintiff, who had joined the Education Department on 19.11.1991 as Science Master, was promoted as Lecturer on 17.7.2000. He was accordingly posted to join as Lecturer at Government Senior Secondary School, Dawla, Regular Second Appeal No.730 of 2008 (O&M) : 2 : District Jhajjar. He accordingly reported there on 26.7.2000, but due to non-availability of the post of Biology Lecturer, the Principal of the school did not allow him to join. He states to have reported the matter to District Education Officer Jhajjar through registered post on 28.7.2000 and also intimated to the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana vide his letter dated 31.7.2000. Thereafter appellant learnt that he had been adjusted at Government Senior School, Gignow, District Bhiwani. The appellant, however, requested for being adjusted at Government Senior Secondary School, Sundana, District Rohtak and joined at this place on 7.9.2000. In this background, the intervening period from 26.7.2000 to 6.9.2000 was treated as a leave of kind due. Since there was no leave due in the account of the appellant, this period would, thus, not be treated for the purpose of his increment and various other such like benefits. He accordingly filed a suit for treating this period as a duty period. The suit was dismissed. He could not succeed in his first appeal and, therefore, he has filed the present Regular Second Appeal. The short and crisp question that would arise for consideration is whether a person can be treated not on duty when because of no fault on his part, he is not given a place of posting or that place of posting given to him does not carry post for which he was sent there. The claim of the appellant was declined by the first Appellate Court on the ground that he was required to get in touch with the Director in case there was no post at a school where he stood posted on 26.7.2000. The first Appellate Court non-suited the appellant on the ground that no document had been produced in this regard when he had approached the Director, Secondary Education, Regular Second Appeal No.730 of 2008 (O&M) : 3 : Haryana. Even the letter stated to have been written was not produced on record in this regard and, thus, it was mere oral testimony of the plaintiff, which was found not sufficient by the court to find that he had informed the Director about the fact that he was unable to join at Dawla school. I failed to appreciate the reasoning adopted by the first Appellate Court and the trial court to non-suit the appellant. Oral testimony is as good an evidence as is the documentary evidence. Section 59 of the Evidence Act provides that all facts, except the contents of documents, may be proved by oral evidence. Oral evidence, if credible is legally sufficient to prove a fact. Oral evidence can not be discarded merely because it is oral and if it is done, it would amount to carrying caution to extreme lengths. Courts have to be careful not to do so. Nothing otherwise has been stated to doubt or impeach or to discredit the evidence given orally. Disbelieving the oral testimony only on the ground that it is not supported by a documentary evidence would not be a legal approach for courts in every case. Once the appellant had given this oral testimony that he had taken action to inform the Director, the burden in this case would shift on the State to show that in fact he had not made any such approach. The courts were required to appreciate that there was no evidence led by the State to show that whatever has been stated orally by the appellant was not made out or was not correct. Disbelieving the appellant only on the ground that he could not produce any document in support, in my view, would not be fair approach. Thus, the evidence available on record has not been correctly appreciated in terms of the legal position. Regular Second Appeal No.730 of 2008 (O&M) : 4 : The present Regular Second Appeal is allowed as substantial question of law regarding the manner of appreciation of oral evidence would arise in this case. The judgments under appeal rendered by the trial court as well as by the first Appellate Court, therefore, are set-aside. Consequently, a decree for declaration is issued to the effect that the impugned order dated 5.9.2000 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana, Chandigarh to treat the intervening period as a leave of kind due is illegal and further directions are issued that this period be treated as a duty period. The necessary decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Regular Second Appeal is allowed in the above terms. February 17, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE