Regular Second Appeal No.185 of 2009 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Misc.No.5623-C of 2009 Regular Second Appeal No.185 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : May 08, 2009 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala ... Applicant-Appellant VERSUS Charan Singh, Conductor ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.G.S.Gill, Advocate for the appellant – Corporation. A.N.JINDAL, J.- For the reasons stated in C.M.No.5623-C of 2009, the order dated 20.3.2009 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. RSA NO.185/2009 : Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala (herein referred as the appellant) has preferred this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.6.2008 passed by District Judge, Faridkot, dismissing the appeal of the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 18.12.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Faridkot, whereby, the suit of Charan Singh – plaintiff/respondent (herein referred as the respondent) was decreed and the orders No.1143 dated 13.1.1985, 1518 dated 13.12.1987 and order No.588 dated 19.8.1992 were quashed and the plaintiff was held entitled to Regular Second Appeal No.185 of 2009 [ 2 ] all the service benefits, e.g, increments, etc. along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, with effect from the date of filing of the suit. The respondent filed a suit on the allegations that he was Conductor in appellant – Corporation at Faridkot Depot. Vide order dated 13.1.1985, his one increment was withheld with cumulative effect and vide order dated 13.12.1987, four more increments with cumulative effect were withheld and again vide order dated 19.8.1992, one more increment with cumulative effect was withheld, without holding any enquiry, issuing charge-sheet or giving notice to show cause or opportunity of personal hearing. He also alleged that all the above said orders are illegal, null and void and had been passed against the principles of natural justice. The appellant Corporation contested the suit and filed the written statement, pleading that due enquiry was held before awarding penalty to the respondent, therefore, the orders are quite valid. The stopping of increments is one of the the major penalties, therefore, holding a regular enquiry is a sine qua non, before inflicting such punishment, but the appellant Corporation has not produced any enquiry file, to establish the enquiry proceedings before imposing the major penalty in question. The suit was also not found to be time-barred. Had there been really an enquiry held by the appellant Corporation, then they should have no hesitation in producing the file relating to the proceedings taken therein, but withholding of the best evidence by the appellant Corporation leads this Court to draw an adverse inference that the respondent was awarded major penalty without adopting the procedure, as laid down by Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Regular Second Appeal No.185 of 2009 [ 3 ] Consequently, it would be observed that findings returned by both the courts below san any defect, illegality or much les any irregularity, warranting interference by this Court. No substantial question of law arises or is involved in the present case. Finding no grounds to interfere, the appeal is dismissed. ( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE May 08, 2009 `gian' To be Referred to Reporter - No