Regular Second Appeal No. 2863 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2863 of 1986 Date of decision: 23.03.2010 Ajaib Singh ...Appellant Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Sarwan Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.S. Rapri, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The appellant-plaintiff was employed as Conductor and was posted at Ferozepur. On 25.8.1983, he was issued a charge sheet after being placed under suspension. The proceedings were initiated against him for imposing penalty. Ultimately, order withholding three annual increment with cumulative effect was passed. The appellant filed a suit to challenge the same on the ground that these orders were illegal, ultra vires, null, void and was in violation of principle of natural justice. He had also challenged the order passed by the punishing authority. The impugned order was challenged on number of grounds like charge sheet was not definite and specific. The inquiry held in this case was statedly containing various irregularities and illegalities. The appellant was denied the assistance of co-worker and was allegedly not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. It was also alleged that the appellant Regular Second Appeal No. 2863 of 1986 2 was not given opportunity to produce his defence witnesses. In the written statement filed, the respondent-State took a preliminary objection about the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit. The allegations made in the plaint were denied. The factual position about the service of the appellant was admitted and so too the passing of the impugned order dated 25.08.1983. The suit was tried on the following issues by the trial court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as prayed for?OPP 2. Whether order dated 25.8.1983 passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur is illegal, null and void?OPP 3. Whether civil court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit?OPD 4. Whether notice under Section 80 C.P.C. Was validly and legally served upon the plaintiff before filing the suit? OPP On the basis of evidence led, the trial Court decided issues No. 1 and 2 against the appellant. Issue No. 3 was decided against respondent-State whereas issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the appellant. In view of above finding, the suit was dismissed with costs. Against this, the appellant filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur. The said appeal was dismissed on 29.05.1986. Thereafter, the present Regular Second Appeal was filed. Regular Second Appeal No. 2863 of 1986 3 Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has made a submission before me on a solitary ground by contending that the charge against the appellant was for embezzlement and the resultant negligence arising therefrom. The inquiry officer, however, found that the charge of embezzlement was not established but still held the appellant guilty of some negligence by not issuing ticket to the passenger. As per the learned counsel, the punishing authority without recording any dissent note went ahead to punish the appellant, which could not have been done in view of the settled law. The learned senior counsel has drawn my attention to the charge leveled against the appellant and to the show cause notice issued to the appellant before awarding him penalty of stoppage of 3 increment with cumulative effect. I have minutely perused the charge sheet served upon the appellant. There was no allegation of embezzlement made in the charge. The gravamen of the charge in this case was that the appellant was negligent in not issuing ticket to a relative of an employee and it is mentioned in the charge that by not issuing the ticket, he was to collect an amount of ticket for Rs. 5.30p in order to embezzle the same. The charge as read would be to the effect that the appellant had made an attempt to embezzle the amount and not that there was any embezzlement. That part of the charge obviously was not established of which the appellant was exonerated by the inquiry officer. The punishing authority had agreed with the finding returned by the inquiry officer and did not differ with the same. This would be apparent from the show cause notice issued to the appellant before awarding him the impugned penalty. It is clearly Regular Second Appeal No. 2863 of 1986 4 mentioned in the show cause notice that the punishing authority had agreed with the finding returned by the inquiry officer, which was only to the effect that he had been negligent in performance of his duty by not issuing ticket to the passenger. There was no finding by the inquiry officer about embezzlement or attempt to embezzle with which there was any need for the punishing authority to differ with the said finding. In this background, the submission that the dissent note was required to the recorded before punishing the appellant cannot be accepted. I find no merit in the plea raised before me. There is no substantial question of law arising in this case. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. March 23, 2010 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE