IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1832 of 2008 Date of Decision: 11.11.2008 State of Haryana and others .... Appellants vs. Chhotu Ram .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla. Present: Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, DAG, Haryana for the appellants. Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the respondent. *** Rajive Bhalla, J, (Oral) The State of Haryana challenges the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent and dismissing their appeal, respectively. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit challenging the order of punishment dated 26th July, 2002, whereby recovery of an amount of Rs.4500/- was ordered. The plaintiff-respondent pleaded that no chargesheet was served as required by Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987. The show cause notice was not accompanied by the report of the checking officer and the show cause notice and the punishment imposed are contrary to Rule 4(iv) of the Civil Services Rules read with Rule 8. The respondents opposed the suit by asserting that while on duty, on 26.07.2002, ten passengers were found travelling without tickets, though the respondent had received the fare of Rs.30/-. It was asserted that requisite procedure was followed and thereafter recovery orders were passed in accordance with law. After considering pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed the trial court decreed the suit and set aside the order of punishment, holding that the punishing authority had prejudged the plaintiff's guilt as the show cause notice referred to the punishment to be RSA No.1832 of 2008 -2- awarded. It was also held that the copy of the checking report was not appended with the show cause notice. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellants filed an appeal. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings returned by the trial court. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. The contention urged by the counsel for the State of Haryana that as delinquent official's guilt stood established, mere technical infirmities in the procedure adopted by the appellants are insufficient to set aside the order of punishment, do not merit acceptance. In order to place the above conclusion in its correct perspective an extract from the first appellate court's judgment would be appropriate:- “In the case in hand, admittedly the checking report submitted by the concerned Inspector was not supplied to the plaintiff and the show cause notice Ex.P-5 was issued to him that he had committed embezzlement of Rs.30/- and as to why a sum of Rs.4500/- be not recovered from his salary which was replied by the plaintiff vide reply Ex.P-6 and then impugned order Ex.P-7 was passed proposing penalty of Rs.4500/- to be deducted from the plaintiff's salary which was also recovered from him as shown in receipt Ex.P-8. DW-1 Meet Singh in his cross-examination admitted that no chargesheet under Rule 8 was served on the plaintiff, nor checking report was supplied to him along with the show cause notice Ex.P-5 and that in the show cause notice blanks have been filled in. Like-wise blanks have been filled in the order P-7 by the Clerk and General Manager only signed the same. Karnail Singh Inspector DW-2 submitted his affidavit Ex.DW-2/A along with RSA No.1832 of 2008 -3- report Ex.D-5. He admitted that 10 times fare could be recovered from the passengers travelling without tickets. He also admitted that the copy of the report was not supplied to the plaintiff, nor he noted down the addresses of the passengers travelling without tickets.” It is apparent from the above reproduced extract that the procedural violations pointed out are not mere technical infirmities of procedure but infirmities that prejudice the right of the respondent to a fair enquiry. The punishing authority neither followed the procedure, nor did it furnish the requisite documents to the delinquent official and in addition prejudged the punishment. As the impugned judgments do not suffer from any error of law and as no question of law much-less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 11.11.2008 (Rajive Bhalla) sk Judge