RSA No. 963 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 963 of 2009 Date of Decision: 30.7.2009 Punjab State and others ......Appellants Versus Joginder Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 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: Ms. Ambica Luthra, AAG, Punjab. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for declaration to the effect that the order of punishment dated 9.10.2000 passed by the Chief Engineer, National Highway, Punjab PWD (B&R), imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.1,39,235/-, was decreed. The plaintiff-respondent was charge-sheeted on 15.10.2001 and Shri Nirmal Singh, Superintending Engineer, was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. There were three charges against the plaintiff. Charge No.1 was that the plaintiff has made local purchase in violation of the Codal Rules. Charge No.2 was that the plaintiff while making local purchases in violation RSA No. 963 of 2009 (2) of the Codal Rules, has exceeded his jurisdiction and thus, made himself liable for punishment under the Rules. Charge No.3 was that on account of purchases made by the plaintiff in violation of the Codal Rules, he has caused loss to the State Government, which is recoverable from the plaintiff. The Inquiry Officer in his report dated 25.7.1996 has found charge Nos. 1 and 2 proved against the plaintiff but in respect of charge No. 3, it was held that such charge is not proved. On the basis of the said report, the punishing authority passed an order of punishment as aforesaid by presuming that the Inquiry Officer has proved the charges against the plaintiff. Both the Courts have found that the order of recovery could not have been passed against he plaintiff in as much as the Inquiry Officer has not given any finding against the plaintiff. The punishing authority has not recorded any reasons to disagree with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer before imposing punishment. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the punishing authority is violative of the principles of natural justice and, thus, not sustainable. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the finding recorded by the Courts below that the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the plaintiff is factually not correct, therefore, there was no necessity to record the reasons of disagreement before imposition of punishment. However, I do not find any merit in the said argument. The order of punishment proceeds on the assumption that the Inquiry Officer has found the plaintiff guilty for causing loss to the Government to the tune of RSA No. 963 of 2009 (3) Rs.1,39,235/-. Such presumption is factually incorrect. The order of punishment has not been passed on the basis of charge Nos. 1 and 2 which were found to be proved against the plaintiff. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Courts below cannot be said to be suffering from any patent illegality or irregularity, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 30.7.2009 ds