R.S.A. No.186 of 1988 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No.186 of 1988 Date of decision: February 09, 2011. Ajmer Singh ...Appellant(s) v. State of Punjab & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri M.K. Garg, Advocate, for the appellant(s). Shri G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. Present Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff who filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 30th June, 1983 passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Tarn Taran, District Amritsar, whereby his services were terminated, be held null and void and not binding upon the parties. Suit and the appeal preferred by the appellant were dismissed. Hence, he has approached this Court by way of filing the present regular second appeal. Briefly stated, plaintiff-appellant was employed as a Conductor in Tarn Taran Deport of the Punjab Roadways. It was averred in the suit that the plaintiff was wrongly suspended on the report submitted by the Inspectorate Staff and subsequently, he was charged-sheeted on 23.2.1983 R.S.A. No.186 of 1988 -: 2 :- and along with the charge-sheet, he was not supplied the essential material. It was pleaded that the written statement to the charge-sheet was not considered by the Enquiry Officer and the plaintiff was not given an opportunity to take help of any person during the enquiry. A grievance was made that the charges were not read-over to the plaintiff-appellant and it was not enquired as to whether he was in a position to face the departmental enquiry or not. He was not allowed to cross-examine at length and proper defence was denied to him by the Enquiry Officer. In the written statement filed, defendant-respondent denied the pleadings made in the plaint. Sub Judge 2nd Class, Amritsar, on 21.5.1985, formulated the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the declaration prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the notice u/s 80 CPC has not been legally and validly served upon the defendants? OPD 4. Relief. Plaintiff examined Jagtar Singh Clerk, PW1 who tendered Enquiry file Ex.P1. Plaintiff himself appeared as PW2. The trial court noticed the contentions of the plaintiff and minutely examined the enquiry file and held as under:- “10. Thereafter, the plaintiff was charge-sheeted. The charge sheet is at page 49 of the enquiry file. The plaintiff was supplied with the copies of charge sheet and list of charges and thereafter the plaintiff submitted the detailed reply to the charge R.S.A. No.186 of 1988 -: 3 :- sheet which is at page 55 to 57 on the enquiry file. After the receipt of reply from the plaintiff, the departmental enquiry was ordered and thereafter Shri Tilak Raj Mahajan was appointed as enquiry officer. His appointment order is at page 59 of the enquiry file and Shri Satish Kumar Clerk was appointed as presenting officer and his appointment order is at page 61 of the enquiry file. 11. From the enquiry file, it is evident that the intimation regarding the appointment of the enquiry officer was sent to the plaintiff and the plaintiff appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 26th April, 1983 and statement of the plaintiff was recorded in which he stated that he has got the copies of the charge sheet and documents. Thereafter, he pleaded not guilty to the charges and thereafter statement of Kashmir Singh Inspector was recorded. He was cross examined at length by the plaintiff. Statement of Inspector Dara Singh and Mohinder Singh were also cross examined at length. Thereafter, the plaintiff led the defence and examined Jagdish Raj as defence witness and closed the defence evidence. At no stage, the plaintiff moved any application before the enquiry officer that he is not in a position to cross examine the witnesses and he be provided the assistance of some co-employee. From the cross examination by the plaintiff it is evident that sufficient opportunity was granted to him to cross examine the witnesses during the enquiry. The prosecution witnesses were cross examined at length by the plaintiff and it cannot be said that the plaintiff R.S.A. No.186 of 1988 -: 4 :- could not cross examine the witnesses during the enquiry effectively. 12. After the close of the evidence, enquiry officer submitted his report, which is at pages 95, 97 and 99 of the enquiry file. He found the plaintiff guilty of the charges levelled against him in charge sheet dated 23.2.1983 which is at page 49 of the enquiry file. Thereafter, G.M. Defendant No.2 agreed with the report of the enquiry officer and ordered that show cause for removal of the plaintiff from the service be issued to the plaintiff. The order of G.M. is at page 99 of the enquiry file. Thereafter, show cause notice which is at page 101 of the enquiry file was issued to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed the reply to the show cause notice which is at page 103 of the enquiry file. He was also given opportunity of personal hearing and thereafter, the impugned order was passed by the G.M., which is at page 109 of the enquiry file. Thus, from the enquiry file it is evident that the enquiry was held according to the procedure laid down in Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and appeal) Rules, 1970.” The findings returned by the trial court have been affirmed by the lower appellate court. A plea was raised by the plaintiff that the passengers of the bus were not examined, was rejected by the trial court holding that the same was not imperative. It is evident from the perusal of the enquiry file Ex.P1 that Kashmir Singh Inspector and Mohinder Singh Inspector had stated that on 10.2.1983 they had checked the bus coming from Attari to Tarn Taran. R.S.A. No.186 of 1988 -: 5 :- During checking, 19 passengers were found without tickets and they in the presence of the Conductor disclosed that Conductor, having accepted the fare, had not issued the tickets. Lower appellate court held that the statement of Inspector Dara Singh and Mohinder Singh were fully corroborated by defence witness Jagdish Raj. Lower appellate court held that it is not a case where there is no evidence. It is further held that the appellant never sought assistance of any co-employee. He had also cross examined witnesses at length and had also led his defence. Lower appellate court concluded that the delinquent official has failed to prove any prejudice. The lower appellate court placed reliance upon R.C. Sharma v. Union of India 1976(2) Service Law Report 265 to hold that whether any reasonable opportunity was given to the erring officer or not, is a question of fact and in the present case, plea of the appellant that he was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself was rejected. The concurrent finding of fact returned by both the courts below based on the record has been assailed before this Court and it is urged that neither the appellant was supplied list of witnesses nor documents which are relied against him. Furthermore, argument which has been repeated inspite of being rejected by both the courts below, is that the appellant was not told to seek assistance of co-employee, therefore, it amounts to denial of proper opportunity. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in Hans Raj Gupta v. State of Punjab, 1992(1) SCT 258. Further State of Haryana v. Mohan Singh , 1985(2) SLR 116 has been pressed into service to contend that where passenger is not examined during the enquiry, no reliance can be placed on the solitary statement of the Inspector who R.S.A. No.186 of 1988 -: 6 :- detected lapse. In support of this contention, further reliance has been placed upon Ram Parshad v. State of Punjab , 1998(2) SLR 54, which, in turn had placed reliance upon Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh , 1983(1) SLR 626 (SC). The above stated judgments are of no help to the appellant as both the courts below had rejected the arguments advanced before me by thoroughly examining the enquiry proceedings contained in enquiry file Ex.P1. It has been held that the appellant had cross examined the witnesses at length and had examined the witnesses in defence also. Therefore, it was rightly held that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant, even if no specific opportunity has been given to seek assistance of the co-employee. Furthermore, the lower appellate court stated that the deposition of the Roadways Inspectors is corroborated by defence witness Jagdish Raj. Therefore, on this score also, the argument advanced by the Counsel is to be discarded. Counsel has failed to dislodge the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below and, thus, this Court is of the opinion that the Counsel could not formulate any substantial question of law which could engage attention of this Court to cause interference. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] February 09, 2011. Judge kadyan