R.S.A.No.3254 of 2008 {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No.3254 of 2008 Date of Decision:September 08, 2009 Chandi Ram ---Appellant versus G.M.Haryana Roadways and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Divya Sarup,Advocate, for Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the appellant Ms. Maloo Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana *** SABINA J. Plaintiff – Chandi Rain filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction. Civil Judge ( Junior Division), Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 11.8.2007 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was accepted by Additional District Judge, Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 19.5.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. The facts of the case as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, in paras of its judgment read as under:- “Briefly stated, the plaintiff now respondent has filed civil suit for permanent injunction and declaration with consequential R.S.A.No.3254 of 2008 {2} relief against the defendants now appellants of the allegation that the plaintiff was posted as Driver No. 217 in Haryana Roadways Depot, Kaithal and recovery of Rs. 24,452/- has been imposed upon the plaintiff by defendant no. 1 vide punishment order No. 1611/ECD dated 6.8.2004. The plaintiff has challenged the said punishment order as null, void and liable to be set aside on the ground that the punishment order was passed after nine years and on account of passage of time, the plaintiff was unable to recollect as to what was happened in the discharge of his duties and passing of impugned orders after nine years was prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiff. It has been alleged that there is nothing on the file in order to prove that on the said date as to whether the plaintiff was on duty on bus No. 916 and even the brake down of the vehicle has not been proved. 3 It has been allege that the said punishment order dated 6.8.2004 was non-speaking and no finding on the charges have been recorded and the punishing authority has passed the impugned order in an illegal manner. It has been further alleged that the plaintiff had filed reply to show cause notice dated 31.10.2003 but the same has been concealed with mala fide intention and under the garb of said illegal punishment order, defendant No. 1 was bent upon effecting recovery of the said amount in an illegal manner which would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has requested the defendants not to effect the recovery of said amount in view of R.S.A.No.3254 of 2008 {3} the illegal order dated 6.8.2004 passed by defendant No. 1 but in vain. On the aforesaid allegations, the plaintiff has prayed for decreed for declaration to the effect that the punishment order dated 6.8.2004 passed by defendant No. 1 for the recovery of Rs. 24,452/- from the pay of the plaintiff was illegal, null, void and consequently has prayed for restraining defendant No. 1 from effecting recovery of the said amount from the pay of the plaintiff and if the recovery has been effected from the pay of plaintiff, then the same be ordered to be refunded back along with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. 4 However, in response to the notice, the defendants appeared and filed joint written statement wherein it has been contended in preliminary objections that on 25.11.1995 the plaintiff was performing his duty on bus No. 916 from Hisar to Delhi and on that day the bus departure from Hisar to Delhi and on 28.11.1995 a report was made that the voice was coming from the engine of bus No. 916 and thereafter vide order dated 3.2.1997 passed by G.M., Haryana Roadways, Hisar, the plaintiff was charge sheeted under Rule 8 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal)Rules, 1987 (hereinafter called as Rules, 1987) wherein it was mentioned that on 27.11.1995, the plaintiff was performing the duty on bus No. 916 on Delhi route and when the bus reached in Delhi, then the engine mobile oil leaked and for want of engine mobile-oil, the noise was coming from the engine and R.S.A.No.3254 of 2008 {4} thereafter the plaintiff filled the mobile oil in the engine at Delhi and came back at Hisar but on account of leaking of mobile oil, the crank of the engine has been damaged and if the plaintiff had stopped the bus in Delhi, the engine of the bus could have been saved and thus, the engine of the bus damaged on account of negligence of the plaintiff and while getting the said damaged engine repaired, the defendants has spent an amount of Rs. 24452/-. 5 It has been contended that the plaintiff has not replied to the charge sheet and thereafter the plaintiff received notice dated 21`.1.2001 but the same was also not relied and thereafter vide memo dated 31.10.2003, show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff that an amount of Rs. 24,452/- be not recovered from his pay but even then the said show cause notice was not replied and vide order dated 8.4.2004 the plaintiff was afforded personal hearing which was received by the plaintiff on 9.3.2004 but the plaintiff did not appear for personal hearing and thereafter a letter dated 26.5.2004 for personal hearing which was received on 27.5.2004 but the plaintiff did not appear before the competent authority for personal hearing and thereafter the defendant no. 1 vide order dated 6.8.2004 inflicted the proposed punishment of Rs. 24,452/- in 24 equal installments from the salary of the plaintiff. It has been further alleged that plaintiff was habitual in causing loss to the buses and has shown negligence several times in the performance of his duties and several warnings R.S.A.No.3254 of 2008 {5} have already been given to the plaintiff. However, on merits, it has been contended that the order of recovery of Rs. 24,452/- had been rightly passed. It has been contended that if the plaintiff was not having any document, then he could have obtained the same from the office of defendants. It has been contended that engine of bus No. 916 was damaged on account of negligence on the part of plaintiff and defendants have spent Rs. 24,452/- in repairing the engine of the said bus and thus the order dated 6.8.2004 has been passed in legal manner. It has been contended that no reply was ever submitted by the plaintiff to the show cause notice issued to him. All other allegations have been denied as false and frivolous and it has been prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with costs.” On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed the following issues:- (1)Whether the penalty of Rs. 24452/- imposed on the plaintiff vide order dated 6.8.2004 is illegal, null and void and is not binding on the rights of the plaintiff? OPP (2)Whether the defendants are liable to be restrained from effecting the impugned recovery of Rs. 24452/- on the basis of the order dated 6.8.2004 from the salary of the plaintiff? OPP (3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the alternative relief for the recovery of the impugned amount along with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum if the defendant succeed in executing the impugned order during the pendency of this suit? R.S.A.No.3254 of 2008 {6} OPP (4) Whether the plaintiff has not locus standi and cause of action to file this suit ? OPD (5)Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit? OPD (6)Relief After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Plaintiff had filed a suit seeking declaration that the order of punishment whereby recovery of Rs. 24,452/- was sought to be made from him was illegal, null and void. Plaintiff was working as a Driver with the defendants. Plaintiff was working on bus No. 916 of Haryana Roadways, Hisar. On 25.11.1995 he drove the bus from Hisar to Delhi. There was leakage of mobile oil from the filter of the said bus. However, the plaintiff drove the bus. Plaintiff got filled the mobile oil but the bust was damaged. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the plaintiff. A charge sheet was served on the plaintiff. He failed to file any reply to the same. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff as to why the recovery in question be not effected from him. However, the plaintiff did not reply to the said show cause notice dated 31.10.2003. An opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded to the plaintiff but he failed to appear for personal hearing before the competent authority in response to the notice served upon him. The scope of judicial review regarding interference with punishment order is very limited. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is only R.S.A.No.3254 of 2008 {7} to see the method/manner of awarding punishment. The Court is only concerned with the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority. If the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority is according to rules and natural justice, then no interference with the punishment order is called for. The Civil Court cannot go into the merits of the case. In case, the finding of the Inquiry Officer is based on some evidence, then the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence or weigh the same like the Appellate Authority. So long as there is some evidence in support of the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. Some defects in the inquiry has to be pointed out before the Civil Court can interfere with the punishment order. Further more, if defect is pointed out then the delinquent employee has to show as to what prejudice has caused to him on account of the said defect. The Court exercising jurisdiction of judicial review is not to interfere with the finding of the fact arrived at in a departmental inquiry excepting in a case of mala fide or perversity. The finding recorded by the disciplinary authority is immune from interfering within the limited scope of power of judicial review applicable to the Court. Thus, the learned Additional District Judge had rightly held that the plaintiff himself did not care to join the enquiry proceedings and hence, the suit of the plaintiff was liable to be dismissed. Civil Court cannot sit as a Court of Appeal with regard to the punishment order. Plaintiff was afforded full opportunity to participate in the departmental proceedings but he chose to stay away from the departmental proceedings. R.S.A.No.3254 of 2008 {8} No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 08, 2009 PARAMJIT