RSA No.1805 of 1996 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 1805 of 1996 Date of decision: March 04 , 2011 Pepsu Roadways Transport Corporation Patiala and another .....Appellants Versus Manjit Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Yogesh Goel, Advocate for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging order dated 8.4.1988. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was appointed as a Driver with Defendants (Corporation) on 25.3.1983. On 23.11.1987, plaintiff was on duty with Bus No. 3655 enroute Amritsar to Kapurthala. The bus went out of order and it was sent to a private shop for repair at the instance of Adda Incharge. The repair could not be completed and the mechanic of the private repair shop left the pressure gauge pipe open. On 24.11.1987, Harinder Singh, Fitter came at 10.00 a.m. and was informed about the break down of the RSA No.1805 of 1996 2 bus. Without verifying the facts, Depot Manager in a malafide manner issued charge-sheet dated 15.1.1988 at the home address of the plaintiff. Plaintiff was placed under suspension. Plaintiff submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. The Punishing Authority appointed an Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. Plaintiff was, however, denied the assistance of the co-workers during the inquiry proceedings. Signatures of the plaintiff were taken on blank papers without recording the statements of witnesses in his presence. A show cause notice dated 25.1.1988 was served on the plaintiff and the same was not accompanied with the copy of the inquiry report. The cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff on 8.4.1988 and then he filed an appeal on 5.5.1989 which had not been decided till date. Defendants, in their written statement, admitted the appointment of the plaintiff with the Defendants as a Driver. The other contents of the plaint were denied. It was averred that the plaintiff had intentionally opened the pressure pipe. The Fitter found the pipe open when he inspected the bus on 24.11.1987. The pipe was set right and the Driver was directed to take the bus to the Bus Stand but the plaintiff continued making excuses. The Depot Manager issued the charge-sheet as per the complaint of the Adda Incharge. The charge-sheet was issued on 30.11.1987 but the plaintiff had failed to reply the said charge-sheet. The Traffic Manager was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. During Inquiry proceedings, plaintiff was provided the services of the co-workers but he admitted all the charges levelled against him. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- RSA No.1805 of 1996 3 “1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit?OPD 3.Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?OPD 4.Relief”. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.1992 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala vide judgment and decree dated 19.2.1996. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was time barred. The inquiry proceedings had been conducted as per rules. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was within limitation. The impugned order had been passed in violation of the rules. The substantial question of law that arises in this appeal is as to whether the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below are illegal and are against the settled principles of law. Plaintiff had filed the suit challenging his termination order dated 8.4.1988 on 20.4.1990. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff was within the period of limitation. In the present case, impugned order of dismissal of services of the plaintiff was passed by the Depot Manager. As per Appointment and Conditions Rules, 1981, the Depot Manager and the Deputy General Manager are the competent authority for RSA No.1805 of 1996 4 passing the punishing order qua driver. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Depot Manager was not competent to pass the impugned order. Both the Courts below have erred in holding that the impugned order could not be passed by the Depot Manager. The scope of judicial review regarding interference with punishment order is very limited. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is only to see the method/manner of awarding punishment. The Court is only concerned with the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority. If the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority is according to rules and natural justice, then no interference with the punishment order is called for. The Civil Court cannot go into the merits of the case. In case, the finding of the Inquiry Officer is based on some evidence, then the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence or weigh the same like the Appellate Authority. So long as there is some evidence in support of the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. Some defects in the inquiry has to be pointed out before the Civil Court can interfere with the punishment order. Further more, if defect is pointed out then the delinquent employee has to show as to what prejudice has been caused to him on account of the said defect. It has been held in Bank of India and another vs. Degala Suryanarayana, J.T. 1999 (4) Supreme Court 489 that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the departmental proceedings. The Court exercising jurisdiction of judicial review is not to interfere with the finding of the fact arrived at in a departmental inquiry excepting in a case of mala fide or perversity. The Court cannot embark upon reappreciating the RSA No.1805 of 1996 5 evidence or weigh the same like an Appellate Authority. The finding recorded by the disciplinary authority was immune from interference within the limited scope of power of judicial review applicable to the Court. The next question that requires consideration is as to whether the inquiry had been held as per rules and regulations. A chargesheet was served on the plaintiff. The Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Punishing authority. Thereafter, the plaintiff joined the inquiry proceedings. The plaintiff, vide Exhibit D1 dated 25.1.1988, admitted the charges levelled against him in the charge sheet dated 30.11.1987. The Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report that the charges levelled against the plaintiff stood proved as he had admitted the same on the same day. A show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff . During inquiry proceedings, plaintiff admitted his guilt and, thereafter, the impugned order of punishment was passed by the competent authority. The plaintiff took up the plea that his signatures had been obtained on blank papers on the assurance that he would be granted pardon. The plea taken by the plaintiff that his signatures were obtained on a blank paper is liable to be rejected as there was no occasion for the Inquiry Officer to take the signatures of the plaintiff on the blank papers. The Inquiry Officer had no enmity or ill will against the plaintiff. Thus, inquiry had been conducted against the plaintiff as per rules and the punishment order was passed in after following due procedure of law. In the present case, from the above discussion, it is evident that the Courts' below have passed the impugned judgment and decree ignoring the settled principles of law. The substantial RSA No.1805 of 1996 6 question of law stands answered accordingly. Hence, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge March 04,2011 arya RSA No.1805 of 1996 7 RSA No.1805 of 1996 8 RSA No.1805 of 1996 9 RSA No.1805 of 1996 10 RSA No.1805 of 1996 11 RSA No.1805 of 1996 12 RSA No.1805 of 1996 13 RSA No.1805 of 1996 14 RSA No.1805 of 1996 15 RSA No.1805 of 1996 16 RSA No.1805 of 1996 17 RSA No.1805 of 1996 18 RSA No.1805 of 1996 19 RSA No.1805 of 1996 20