R. S. A. No. 1473 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1473 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 04, 2011 Avinash Chander Khanna .... Appellant Vs. The Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 4102-C of 2011 and Main Appeal : Plaintiff Avinash Chander Khanna, who was successful in the trial court, but has been non-suited by the lower appellate court, has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff-appellant filed suit against the respondents challenging punishment orders no.141, 142, 143 and 144 dated 12.03.1999 passed by Chief Engineer thereby ordering recovery of Rs.57,942.08, Rs.1,17,391.11, Rs.6,45,525.84 and Rs.1,62,949.50 respectively on account R. S. A. No. 1473 of 2011 (O&M) 2 of shortage of material etc. The plaintiff-appellant was working as Junior Engineer under defendants/respondents. While he was in service, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. The plaintiff, who had joined service as Assistant Lineman in the year 1965, retired as Junior Engineer on 31.01.1997. The punishment orders were passed after his retirement. The plaintiff alleged the impugned punishment orders to be null and void. Besides seeking declaration to this effect, the plaintiff also claimed permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making any deduction out of his retiral benefits on account of the impugned orders. Mandatory injunction directing the defendants to repay the amount already deducted along with interest was also claimed. Defendants resisted the suit and claimed the impugned punishment orders to be legal and valid. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, vide judgment and decree dated 07.11.2008, decreed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by defendants has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur, vide judgment and decree dated 20.01.2011 and thereby, suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. Along with appeal, plaintiff-appellant has moved C. M. No. 4102-C of 2011 for additional evidence to produce circular Annexure A-1. R. S. A. No. 1473 of 2011 (O&M) 3 I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that vide circular dated 12.06.1997 (Annexure A-1), only one work could be allocated to a Junior Engineer at one time, whereas the plaintiff was allotted 31 works at one time, and therefore, the aforesaid circular was violated and production of the aforesaid circular by way of additional evidence is essential. However, it appears that aforesaid circular dated 12.06.1997 has already been produced as Ex.P-17, as mentioned in paragraph P-7 of judgment of the lower appellate court and so, the application is infructuous. On merits, the application cannot be allowed. The irregularities, for which the impugned punishment orders were passed, pertained to the period much prior to the issuance of the aforesaid circular and therefore, the aforesaid circular will not govern the same. The circular is, therefore, irrelevant and application for additional evidence cannot be allowed. There is also no explanation as to why this circular was not produced in evidence in the trial court or in the lower appellate court. In addition to the aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant is also unable to refer to any such plea in the plaint. Consequently, the contention is also beyond pleadings. For the reasons aforesaid, C. M. No. 4102-C of 2011 for additional evidence is dismissed. R. S. A. No. 1473 of 2011 (O&M) 4 Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that minor punishment of effecting recovery was imposed by the impugned four orders, but after issuing charge-sheets for major penalty, no regular inquiry was held, and therefore, even minor punishment could not be imposed without holding regular inquiry and impugned orders are therefore vitiated. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of this Court namely Satish Kumar Sharma, L. D. C. vs. The Punjab State Electricity Board and others reported as 1989 (2) SLWR 264. The contention is devoid of merit. Judgment of lower appellate court reveals that two of the impugned punishment orders bearing nos.141 and 144 were passed after issuing show cause notices for minor punishment. Consequently, no regular inquiry was required to be conducted. The plaintiff even failed to file reply to the said show cause notice, which culminated in order nos.141 and 144 dated 12.03.1999. As regards punishment orders no.142 and 143, the same were passed after holding regular inquiry. Consequently, the impugned orders are not vitiated. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that pension cannot be withheld as imposition of minor punishment does not amount to grave misconduct or grave negligence. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Naik Bhag Chand vs. Director General, Central Reserve Police R. S. A. No. 1473 of 2011 (O&M) 5 Force and others reported as 2003 (1) RSJ 507. The contention is misconceived because the observations in the case of Naik Bhag Chand (supra) relate to imposition of punishment of withholding pension. In the instant case, no punishment of withholding pension has been imposed on the plaintiff. On the contrary, recovery ordered by way of impugned punishment orders is sought to be made from the retiral benefits of the plaintiff. Consequently, judgment in the case of Naik Bhag Chand (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on judgment of this Court in the case of Kanwaljit Singh, General Manager (Retd.) vs. State of Punjab and others reported as 2010 (3) S. C. T. 64. In that case, however, pension was withheld during pendency of departmental inquiry. It was held that pension could not be withheld during the pendency of departmental proceedings. Similarly, pensionary benefits had been withheld to the extent of 50% in that case, which could not be done. Moreover, that case pertained to service rules of Punjab State Co-operative Housing Federation, which are not applicable to the case in hand. So, the aforesaid judgment is of no help to the plaintiff-appellant in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the impugned punishment orders were passed after long delay. However, the impugned punishment orders cannot be held to be null and void on this R. S. A. No. 1473 of 2011 (O&M) 6 ground alone. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The impugned punishment orders are not shown to be null and void or vitiated in any manner. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine. April 04, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE