Regular Second Appeal No. 3124 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No. 28-C of 1987 and Regular Second Appeal No. 3124 of 1986 Date of decision: 26.03.2010 The State of Punjab ...Appellant Versus Romesh Chander ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the appellant. Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. RANJIT SINGH J. Respondent-plaintiff, Romesh Chander was working as Conductor in the Punjab Roadways, Pathankot. He was dismissed from service by Divisional Manager, Transport Department, Jalandhar on 22.08.1983. The respondent-plaintiff accordingly challenged his termination by filing a suit seeking declaration that his order of dismissal was illegal, null and void. He also pleaded that the charge sheet issued to him was against law, rules and procedure. Further plea was that he could not exercise his right to cross examine the witnesses effectively and that the charge sheet was framed only on the basis of suspicion. After considering his reply, inquiry was ordered and conducted under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. It is pleaded that the inquiry officer did not question the Regular Second Appeal No. 3124 of 1986 2 respondent-plaintiff in regard to circumstances appearing in evidence against the respondent-plaintiff and his statement was also not recorded as required under the rules. The grievance also is that he was not provided assistance of co-workers. The suit was contested, pleading that the procedure as envisaged under the rule was followed to pass the order of dismissal of respondent-plaintiff from service. The suit filed by the respondent- plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court. While decreeing the suit, the trial Court also held that the appeal was decided by the Divisional Manager, Jalandhar and as such it would be nullity and without jurisdiction. It was then observed that the appellate order dismissing the appeal of the respondent-plaintiff was null and void. Since the order passed by the General Manger has merged with the appellate order so the original order is said to be bad on that count. The State filed an appeal against this order. While upholding the order passed by the trial Court, the department was given liberty to initiate fresh action against the respondent on the previous allegation. No pay was allowed to him by applying the principle of 'No Work No Pay'. The directions were issued not to pay anything to the respondent-plaintiff for the period he remained out of service. The counsel for the respondent-plaintiff points out that subsequent to order passed and impugned in the Regular Second Appeal, the respondent-plaintiff was taken back in service and was even promoted to the rank of Inspector on 28.03.2001 and has since retired from service on 31.12.2004. The counsel would further point out that though the liberty was given to the First Appellate Court to Regular Second Appeal No. 3124 of 1986 3 the department to continue with the proceedings but no action was taken thereafter. In this view of the factual posited noticed above, no case for interference at this stage is made out. Even otherwise, no substantial question of law arises in this case. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. In view of the order passed above, the cross objection also stands dismissed. MARCH 26, 2010 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE