IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.657 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 30th August, 2011 Bishambar Lal … Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sat Narain Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG Haryana, for the respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff, having lost in two rounds of litigation, has approached this Court by filing the present regular second appeal. He had instituted a suit for declaration praying that the impugned order of punishment of reduction to a lower scale of pay passed by respondent- defendant No.3 and upheld by the appellate Court is liable to be set aside as the entire procedure for initiating disciplinary action, i.e. issuance of chargesheet, enquiry proceedings and the enquiry report are nonest and against the principles of natural justice and not binding upon the appellant-plaintiff. It was further prayed that the consequential relief of restoration of payment of the arrears and restoration of the pay be granted to the appellant-plaintiff. It was pleaded by the appellant-plaintiff that he was serving as a Kanungo under the respondents-defendants and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th September, 2005. It was Regular Second Appeal No.657 of 2010 (O&M) further stated that he was issued pension payment order. During his service, a chargesheet was served upon him under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 on the allegation that regarding delivery of possession of the surplus land which was allotted to Ram Mehar, Samay Singh and Badlu Ram, residents of village Malpura by SDO (Civil), Rewari, wrong entry was made in the record of Patwari and in Rapat Roznamcha No.322, 323 and 324. The allegation further stated that in fact no possession at the spot was delivered to the allottees. On the above mentioned allegations, an Enquiry Officer was appointed, a show-cause notice was issued and ultimately punishment of reduction to lower scale of pay was awarded to the appellant-plaintiff. It is also stated that against the order of punishing authority, an appeal was filed but the same was also dismissed. Along with various other grounds a grievance was made in the plaint that no speaking order was passed. It was prayed that the order of punishment be quashed. Upon issuance of the notice of suit, defendant-State filed written statement in which respondents-defendants took a stand that a regular enquiry was held which was in consonance with the procedure prescribed and on the basis of evidence, punishment was rightly awarded upon the delinquent employee. The trial Court, after completion of the pleadings, formulated an issue as to whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration with consequential relief as prayed for. The appellant-plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box as PW-1, whereas Chander Bhan, Kanungo appeared as DW-1. The trial Court relied upon ‘Kuldeep 2 Regular Second Appeal No.657 of 2010 (O&M) Singh v. Commissioner of Police and others’ JT 1998(8) SC 603 to hold that the Court should cause interference only if the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse; not supported by the evidence on record or are recorded at the domestic trial and are such which could not be arrived at by any reasonable person. The Court further held that there is no allegation in the plaint that no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded to the plaintiff to defend himself during the enquiry by the Enquiry Officer. The trial Court further held that even there is no allegation that the plaintiff was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the department. It was further noticed that an opportunity of personal hearing was also granted to the plaintiff and thus, it cannot be said that principles of natural justice were violated. The Court further held that the Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to do re-appraisal of the evidence and thus, it upheld the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and the punishment awarded. The lower appellate Court also affirmed the findings returned by the trial Court. Mr. Sat Narain Yadav, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-plaintiff, has stated that before the Enquiry Officer only three witnesses appeared against the appellant-plaintiff and their evidence is not trustworthy. Learned counsel has further stated that the witnesses, who appeared against the appellant-plaintiff, were interested witnesses and their testimony should have been discarded by the Enquiry Officer. I am afraid, the contention raised by counsel for the appellant-plaintiff cannot be accepted as the Civil Court, while exercising its power of judicial review, cannot do re-appraisal and re-appreciation 3 Regular Second Appeal No.657 of 2010 (O&M) of the evidence. Simply because another view could be formulated, is not sufficient to discard the opinion formulated by the Enquiry Officer. Thus during the course of arguments, no question of law much less a substantial one has been raised which warrants interference by this Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 30, 2011 rps 4