In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.867 of 1988 ..... Date of decision:2.11.2011 The State of Punjab and another .....Appellants v. Dharam Singh .....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 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. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocates for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This is regular second appeal directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide which the appeal filed by the appellant-Dharam Singh (respondent herein) has been allowed and his suit for declaration that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar vide which he was removed from service with consequential relief has been decreed. R.S.A. No.867 of 1988 [2] As per facts of this case, plaintiff-Dharam Singh (respondent herein) was posted as Chowkidar at Tehsil Office Baba Bakala. He was subjected to departmental inquiry and his services were terminated and he was dismissed vide order dated 13.9.1982. Appeal preferred before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar was also dismissed on 17.10.1983. The plaintiff-appellant challenged the impugned order by way of declaratory suit with the averments that the order was illegal, void, ineffective, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice as well as against the Punjab Civil Services Rules. It was alleged that the inquiry was not conducted according to the rules. The documents relied upon by the Department were not supplied to him hence he was not in a position to put his defence. The Inquiry Officer acted as prosecutor and there was no evidence against the plaintiff, no eye witness of the alleged occurrence was examined and he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. It was also pleaded that the impugned order is discriminatory as proceedings against Gurmukh Singh co-accused were dropped and he was reinstated in service with all service benefits. After notice (appellants herein) contested the suit and controverted the allegations. It was pleaded that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the rules and the plaintiff was supplied with all necessary documents and he had been found guilty after affording him full opportunity to defend his case. After framing of issues and recording of evidence suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. However, in appeal the finding of the trial Court has been reversed on the ground that the plaintiff has been discriminated against and further he has not been given proper opportunity to defend his case in departmental R.S.A. No.867 of 1988 [3] proceedings. Aggrieved from this order of the appellate Court, the present regular second appeal has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. As per facts of this case, respondent-Dharam Singh along with one Gurmukh Singh, Clerk was charge-sheeted by the Deputy Commissioner for taking alleged bribe from the girls. The charge levelled against Dharam Singh is reproduced as under:- “That you Dharam Singh along with Gurmukh Singh working at Baba Bakala took Rs.50/- from Kuldip Kaur, Swinder Kaur & Balwinder Kaur for taking their application to the office of the S.D.O.(C) Baba Bakala.” Charge against Gurmukh Singh, Clerk is reproduced as under:- “You Gurmukh Singh while working in the Tehsil Office Baba Bakala had demanded Rs.50/- from Kuldip Kaur, Swinder Kaur and Balwinder Kaur for attesting their certificates and you continued harassing the girls for four days before 17.7.1980 by detaining them up to 5 P.M. daily. 2. That you Gurmukh Singh continued demanding from the girls and took Rs.5/- through Dharam Singh Peon on 17.7.1980 and then forwarded their applications to the S.D.O.(C) Baba Bakala for certificates.” So perusal of the charges framed against the respondent-Dharam Singh, Peon and Gurmukh Singh, Clerk established that both of them have been charged for taking money from the girls which ultimately was to be R.S.A. No.867 of 1988 [4] shared with Gurmukh Singh, Clerk. It will be pertinent to note that charges against Gurmukh Singh were dropped by the punishing authority on 12.1.1983 as deposed by Narinder Kumar, English Clerk of the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Amritar. Further going deep in the facts of this case to my mind the charge against Dharam Singh was less serious as compared to charges against Gurmukh Singh, Clerk. The punishing authority terminated the services of the Peon, however, dropped the proceedings against Gurmukh Singh, Clerk. I am of the considered opinion that if two employees are facing the same charges, punishing one and allowing the other to go scot-free amounts to discrimination. Perusal of the file further shows that all the relevant documents required during the inquiry have not been supplied along with the charge- sheet. Rule 8.11 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules lays down that the Inquiry Officer is required to make the delinquent employee aware of his right that he can take assistance of a co-employee in the proceedings before him. Shri Charan Singh, Tehsildar, Baba Bakala, SDO (Civil) Shri J.R. Kundal, IAS and one Didar Singh, Jamadar appeared as witnesses against Dharam Singh who is a Class IV employee. He might not be in a position to cross-examine the witnesses as all of them are superior to him and one of them is an IAS officer and posted as SDO (Civil), Baba Bakala. In this view of the situation, making aware the employee of his right to take assistance of co-worker gains more importance. So, at this score also the employee has been discriminated. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 13.9.1982 passed by the Collector and later on confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, R.S.A. No.867 of 1988 [5] Jalandhar Division on 17.10.1983 has been rightly set aside by the appellate Court. As a result, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. November 2, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*