R.S.A.No.3060 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A.No.3060 of 2007 Date of Decision : 14.09.2009 Jagdish Chander ...Appellant Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl. AG, Haryana, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, whereby an order imposing punishment of stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect, was dismissed. The plaintiff joined as a Driver with the defendants-Haryana Roadways on 14.7.1987. He was charged on 15.6.1998 on account of remaining absence from duty from 5.5.1995 to 20.6.1995. After conducting enquiry and service show-cause notice, the impugned order dated 1.1.2002 was passed. Appeal against the said order was dismissed on 20.9.2002. Still aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed the present suit. Both the Courts have dismissed the suit. The appellant is, thus, in second appeal. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued that the Enquiry Officer appearing as PW-2 has admitted that it is he, who R.S.A.No.3060 of 2007 2 asked questions from the delinquent and that no questions were asked by the Presenting Officer from the witness. Since the Enquiry Officer has acted as a Presenting Officer as well, therefore, the enquiry stands vitiated. The said aspect was considered by the learned trial Court, whereby it was found that the witness produced by the Department was not cross-examined by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was granted opportunity of personal hearing vide order dated 22.11.2001 Ex.D-9 and the communication dated 14.12.2001 Ex.D-11. After service of second show-cause notice, the order of punishment has been passed, which is in accordance with the Rules. Learned first Appellate Court found that the Presenting Officer was appointed vide orders dated Exs.D-4 and D-5. The enquiry proceedings Ex.D-7 reveals that the Presenting Officer has signed on each and every order-sheet and the proceedings conducted. Therefore, the argument that the Presenting Officer was not appointed and the enquiry was vitiated in any manner, was negated. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced photocopy of enquiry proceedings Ex.D-7. It starts with the proceedings of 13.11.2001, which is signed by the plaintiff and the Presenting Officer. Thereafter, the statement of Khub Ram, Traffic Manager, is recorded, which is again signed by the plaintiff and the Presenting Officer. Another statement of the plaintiff is recorded on 13.11.2001, which is signed by the Presenting Officer and the plaintiff. The plaintiff has stated that he does not want to ask any cross-examination. Thereafter, the statement of the plaintiff is recorded, which is again signed by the plaintiff and the Presenting Officer. The plaintiff was given an R.S.A.No.3060 of 2007 3 opportunity to produce his witnesses as well. From the said conduct of the proceedings, it is apparent that the plaintiff was given opportunity. The statement of the witness was recorded, in the presence of the plaintiff. He was given opportunity to cross-examine the said witness. He has not availed the said opportunity. Thereafter, the evidence of the plaintiff has been recorded and he has been given opportunity to produce his defence witnesses as well. It appears that the plaintiff has prevailed upon Enquiry Officer. He has been examined as witness by the plaintiff. The statement of the Enquiry Officer is against the record. Therefore, such statement is given to help the plaintiff. Since, the statement is against the record, therefore, is inconsequential. The Enquiry officer was not a necessary witness, as the enquiry file alone was required to be considered. The fact that he was examined as a witness by the plaintiff and has deposed in favour of the plaintiff against the records shows that the said witness was not a truthful witness. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration of this Court in second appeal. Dismissed. 14.09.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE