Regular Second Appeal No.263 of 2009 (O&M) : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 03, 2010 Subhash Rani and others .....Appellants VERSUS Government of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Late H.V.Wason, who was working as S.D.E. in the Department of Public Health Haryana had filed this suit to challenge the enquiry report/proceedings and the show cause notice being null & void and also for relief of mandatory injunction for releasing the amount of Rs.1,90,103/- approximately with interest, which was due to him and had been withheld. During the pendency of suit, he died Regular Second Appeal No.263 of 2009 (O&M) : 2 : on 4.1.2002, whereafter his L.Rs. prosecuted the suit. The facts noted in brief are that H.V.Wason was posted as S.D.E. at Karnal w.e.f. 4.7.1978 to 22.11.1982. Some work of S&S Tank was carried out by Raj Kumar Contractor, which was allotted to him on 27.1.1978. On completion of work in the year 1980, no short fall or negligence was noticed or pointed out. However, H.V.Wason was charge sheeted under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1987 on 6.5.1995 containing four charges. The appellant alone was picked up for being charged, though only 37% of the allotted work was completed during his tenure. H.V.Wason, however, had contested the charges levelled against him being baseless, false and frivolous. It was also pleaded that without considering his reply, the Enquiry Officer was appointed. The plea further is that samples relating to the work were taken after 13-15 years of the completion of the construction and that too in his absence. It was accordingly pleaded that proper inspection of the material could not have been carried out or got analysed in this background. Reference is made to the finding of the Enquiry Officer, where it is held that Inlet channel was completed in the year 1983 while it was made functional in the year 1990. It resulted in non- commissioning of the scheme which remained functional, which led to subjecting the structures to vagaries of weather for a prolonged period. The final bill of the contractor submitted in the year 1981 and passed in the year 1992. Still, no action was taken. The report of Dr.V.K.Sood for testing the cement mortar was termed to be faulty. It was urged that that expenditure of Rs.87,960/- for the repair works Regular Second Appeal No.263 of 2009 (O&M) : 3 : incurred. This amount has been held to be recoverable from contractor and J.E. Accordingly, it is stated that the method of calculating the recovery due would show non-application of mind. Charge No.2 was not held proved against the appellant. Charge No.4, which related to the appellant failing to make necessary arrangement for limiting total work to the reasonable needs of the work and, thus, being responsible for excess issue of material than actual requirement. The appellant was held responsible for this minus bill amounting to Rs.14,834/- with J.E. The show cause noticed was accordingly issued to the appellant and without application of mind, the recovery was directed. The respondents appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections. It is pointed out that Enquiry Officer was appointed to go into the acts of commissions and omissions for which the appellant was charge sheeted. J.C.Yadav, S.E. was appointed as Enquiry Officer, who gave his report revealing a loss of Rs.1,90,197-98P. J.E. was also held responsible but since he had already expired, show cause notice was served on the appellant and after considering the reply, the punishment of the recovery of the loss was directed on 15.3.1999. The record would show that the department had to spend a huge amount on repair or S/S Tank to make it tight and the cost of this repair worked out to be Rs.1,33,229/- if done in 1982 and accordingly show cause notice for recovery was issued. It is also averred that to release 75% of the security of the work, the fictitious certificate of work executed was issued, whereas neither structures were tested nor final bill of the contractor was found to be payable. Regular Second Appeal No.263 of 2009 (O&M) : 4 : The Appellate Court rightly struck the issues and the question, which would require determination. Having analysed the evidence, which was led before the court and also from the enquiry report, the Court found that proper procedure was followed while holding the enquiry. It is also noted that the late plaintiff did not plead that there were any infirmity or irregularity in the procedure of enquiry. Principles of natural justice were followed. In this background, it was noticed that the civil court could not sit over appeal on the findings returned by the Enquiry Officer. Counsel for the appellant, however, would submit with great emphasis that it was a case of no evidence. Despite best efforts, however, he could not succeed in substantiating his plea of case being of no evidence. The evidence, which was available and given in the enquiry proceedings, would not be open to be appreciated or re-appreciated. The submission that the High Court can interfere with the conclusion reached by the departmental enquiry again would be if it is a case of no evidence. This is what is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Police and others, 1999(1) RSJ 353, which was relied upon by the counsel. Similar is the view in Yoginath D.Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 1999(4) RSJ 265. The counsel was not successful in pointing out that the findings were perverse and not supported by evidence. The ratio of law in Food Corporation of India, Hyderabad Vs. A.Prahalada Rao and another , 2000(4) RSJ 505 would not be attracted to the facts situation as no submissions were made before me to contend Regular Second Appeal No.263 of 2009 (O&M) : 5 : that there was any violation of the procedure while holding domestic enquiry. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal as the only substantial question of law formulated that it is a case of no evidence is not made out from the facts and the evidence. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. March 03, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE