Regular Second Appeal No. 1577 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1577 of 1987 Date of decision: 19.04.2010 State of Punjab ...Appellant Versus Ramesh Chander ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the appellant . None for the respondent. RANJIT SINGH J. The State of Punjab has filed this appeal against the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur. The first Appeal filed by the respondent-Ramesh Chander was allowed and the judgment passed by the trial Court was reversed. The respondent-plaintiff was working as Conductor. On 31.01.1991, the bus was enroute from Delhi to Pathankot. The bus conducting by him was checked at Bhogpur at about 2.30 p.m., when one passenger was found travelling without ticket from Delhi to Pathankot. A written complaint dated 03.11.1981 was filed against the respondent-plaintiff alleging therein that one passenger was travelling without ticket from Delhi to Pathankot and thus he was accused of embezzlement of sum of Rs. 39.40p. A charge sheet was served to respondent-plaintiff on 25.11.1981. The respondent- plaintiff was earlier placed under suspension through order dated Regular Second Appeal No. 1577 of 1987 2 05.11.1981. The charge sheet served to the respondent-plaintiff contained two allegations. It was alleged that by making passenger to travel without ticket from Delhi to Pathankot, the respondent- plaintiff had embezzled a sum of Rs. 39.40p. It was further alleged that by allowing the passenger to travel without ticket, the respondent had violated the calls of his duty and had violated law thereby causing loss to the exchequre to the tune of Rs. 39.40p. The respondent-plaintiff filed reply to the charge sheet served upon him. Thereafter, a regular inquiry was conducted against him. The inquiry officer, however, exonerated the respondent-plaintiff of the charge of embezzlement but found him guilty for causing loss to the Department to the tune of Rs. 39.40p by not issuing the ticket to one passenger. The punishing authority agreed with the finding returned by the inquiry officer and directed that the show cause notice be issued to him for terminating his services besides directing the forfeiture of his pay and allowances permissible to him under rules. Ultimately, the respondent-plaintiff was terminated against which he filed an appeal. The appellate authority, however, reduced the punishment from termination to the stoppage of 4 increments with cumulative effect through order dated 04.05.1984. Further directions were issued for not paying the arrears and other allowances due to the respondent-plaintiff for the period he had remained under suspension and out of job. The respondent-plaintiff filed the present suit raising Regular Second Appeal No. 1577 of 1987 3 number of grounds. The appellants filed a joint written statement controverting all the allegations made in the suit and justified the order of punishment. Accordingly, it was prayed that the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether order dated 19.4.84 passed by defendant No. 3 on the basis of order passed by defendant No.2, dated 1.6.83 is illegal, void and is not binding on the plaintiff? OPP. 2. Relief. The trial Court dismissed the suit against which the respondent-plaintiff filed an appeal. The Appellate Court has reversed the finding as already noticed. What has weighed with the First Appellate Court is that the charge of embezzlement is not established against the respondent-plaintiff. It has also been noticed that the respondent-plaintiff had conceded before the Inquiry Officer that the person who has made to travel without ticket was his father. In this background, the finding returned by the Inquiry Officer that it would not be a case of embezzlement of amount, as the respondent- plaintiff would not have charged the money from his father, appears justified. However, the action of the respondent-plaintiff in making his father to travel without ticket without charging money cannot be held justified. As already noticed, the charge preferred against the respondent-plaintiff contained two allegations. One was concerning Regular Second Appeal No. 1577 of 1987 4 the embezzlement of Rs. 39.40p whereas the other aspect of allegation was violation of law and legal duties leading to loss of Rs. 39.40p to the exchequre. Since concededly the respondent-plaintiff had stated that he had allowed his father to travel without ticket, this finding by the Inquiry Officer that he had caused loss to exchequre and had violated the norms of his duty cannot be faulted. The finding returned by the First Appellate Court that respondent-plaintiff was found guilty of something, which was not alleged against him to come to his rescue thus would not be justified. It would be beyond the purview of the civil Court to go into the merits once there was a finding returned by the Inquiry Officer which was agreed to by the punishing authority. The dismissal order initially passed against the respondent-plaintiff was reduced to stoppage of forfeiture of 4 increments with cumulative effect. The admission made by the respondent-plaintiff that he allowed his father to travel without ticket cannot be ignored, merely because the passenger happened to be his father. Considering this aspect, the punishing authority appears to have shown leniency to the respondent-plaintiff. The view taken by the First Appellate Court thus is not justified. The substantial question of law, whether the finding of the Inquiry Officer on the basis of the charges framed against the respondent-plaintiff which held to be a part of the charge, could be interfered as has been done by the First Appellate Court thus arise. The First Appellate Court was not justified in interfering in the punishment imposed on the respondent-plaintiff. The substantial question of law has thus not been rightly decided. The Regular Regular Second Appeal No. 1577 of 1987 5 Second Appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The judgment and order passed by the trial Court is restored. The punishment of forfeiture of 4 increments with cumulative effect thus would stand restored against the respondent-plaintiff. April 19, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE