Regular Second Appeal No.2054 of 1986. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No.2054 of 1986. Date of decision:24-3-2008 Balkar Singh. ...Appellant. Versus The Punjab and another. ...Respondents. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present; Mr. Akshay Bhan Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, AAG Punjab. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. Under challenge in this Regular Second Appeal is the judgment and decree dated 19.4.1986 passed by Mr. A.B.Singh Wasu, the then Additional District Judge, Amritsar whereby he dismissed the appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.4.1985 passed by the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Amritsar. The facts leading to the filing of this Regular Second Appeal are that Balkar Singh filed civil suit for a declaration to the Regular Second Appeal No.2054 of 1986. -2- effect that the impugned order dated 15.4.1982 passed by defendant No.2 terminating his services is illegal and void and he continues to be in service of the defendants on the same terms and conditions of employment admissible from time to time. He pleaded that he was employed in the Punjab Roadways as a Conductor which is a department owned and controlled by the State and as such he was a civil servant. He was governed by the Punjab Civil Services Rules. He was suspended without giving him any opportunity to explain his conduct and subsequently a charge sheet was served upon him which was illegal and defective. The charge sheet did not disclose the entire material on the basis of which the same was framed. Even despite demand, he was not allowed to inspect the documents. His reply to the charge sheet was also not considered with judicial mind. The essential material was not supplied to him during the course of enquiry. He was not informed about the date fixed in the enquiry. He was not allowed to have the assistance of any co-employee. He was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. No opportunity was given to him to adduce his defence. Findings were given by the Enquiry Officer on erroneous grounds. The show cause notice dated 26.3.1982 served upon him did not disclose how and why the Punishing Authority proposed to inflict the punishment of removal from service. He was waiting for personal hearing when the impugned order dated 15.4.1982 was served upon him. It shows that the Punishing Authority did not Regular Second Appeal No.2054 of 1986. -3- apply its mind to the facts of the case. Without good and sufficient cause, he was removed from service vide impugned order which is illegal, cryptic and wrong. He served notice under Section 80 CPC. In the written statement filed by the defendants,preliminary objection was taken that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiff was placed under suspension and a charge sheet was served upon him. It was pleaded that the charge sheet was specific and definite. The necessary material was supplied in the charge sheet. All the witnesses were examined in the presence of the plaintiff. It was also admitted that a show cause notice was served upon the plaintiff on 26.3.1982 and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were also served upon the plaintiff along with show cause notice. Personal hearing was afforded to the plaintiff before passing the impugned order. The impugned order dated 15.4.1982 is legal and valid. A prayer for the dismissal of the suit with costs was made. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1.Whether the order dated 15.4.1982 is illegal, wrong, ultra vires etc. If so, its effect?OPP. 2.Relief. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 8.4.1985 partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Regular Second Appeal No.2054 of 1986. -4- Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal which was dismissed by the then Additional District Judge, Amritsar, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 19.4.1986. Still feeling dis-satisfied with the impugned judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court. The counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has submitted that the following question of law arises in this appeal:- 1.Whether there are material irregularities in conducting the departmental enquiry and thereby principles of natural justice have been violated? The counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has submitted that the enquiry has not been properly conducted. The essential material was not supplied to him during the course of enquiry. The plaintiff was not allowed to have the assistance of any co-employee. The entire enquiry is full of irregularities. No opportunity was given to the plaintiff/appellant to produce his defence. Stereo typed show cause notice was issued to him. The punishment, on the basis of such enquiry, violates the principles of natural justice. Prayer has been made for acceptance of Regular Second Appeal after setting aside the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below and for reinstating the plaintiff/appellant with full back wages. Ms.Sudeepti Sharma, AAG Punjab has supported the Regular Second Appeal No.2054 of 1986. -5- judgments of the Courts below. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The main stress of counsel for the plaintiff/appellant is on the fact that enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with Rules. However, there is concurrent findings of both the Courts below that proper enquiry has been conducted and full opportunity has been given to the plaintiff/appellant to defend his case. That being a finding of fact does not call for any interference in the Regular Second Appeal. In authority reported as Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by Legal Representatives, 2001(3) R.C.R (Civil) 243, it has been held that only substantial question of law can be raised in the Regular Second Appeal. The above-said question of law raised by the counsel for the plaintiff/appellant is not a substantial question of law but, in fact, is a question of fact. However, the question of fact cannot be allowed to be agitated in Regular Second Appeal in view of Section 100 of C.P.C. In view of the above-said authority, no ground for interference is made out. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. March 24 ,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge