RSA No.1654 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1654 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.12.2009 Jagir Singh .... Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.M.S.Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. The plaintiff is in second appeal in a suit for declaration in which he had challenged the order of punishment dated 28.9.2000 passed by defendant No.2 stopping his one increment with cumulative effect and order dated 20.8.2001 passed by Financial Commissioner, Co-operation, Punjab, Chandigarh dismissing his appeal and order dated 4.1.2002 vide which no other benefit was given for the suspension period except already granted subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. The plaintiff was working as an Inspector, Cooperative Societies who was charge-sheeted with charges of misuse of powers, negligence in the performance of duty and violation of Rules. The charge- sheet was entrusted to Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gurdaspur who had found the plaintiff guilty on all the three accounts mentioned here- in-above. In the written statement, it was alleged that suspension period of the plaintiff was regularised vide order dated 19.10.2001 and the full pay was paid to him. Rest of the averments made in the plaint were denied. In RSA No.1654 of 2009 -2- replication, the averments made in the plaint were reiterated and that of the written statement were denied and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: (i)Whether the order dated 28.9.2000 vide letter No.Admn.EA- 2/SA/444/12362-63 AND 20.8.2001 vide letter No.64/7/2K- C-2(1)/12522 dated and 4.1.2002 vide order No.Admn./EA2/SA/222 are illegal, null and void? OPP (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed for? OPP (iii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP (iv)Whether the Civil Court at Amritsar has no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit? OPD. (v)Relief. The plaintiff himself entered the witness box as PW1 and examined Satya Pal as PW2 whereas the defendants examined R.K.Popli, Assistant Registrar as DW1. The trial Court decided issues No.1 to 3 against the plaintiff and issue No.4 against the defendant. The lower Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal observing as under : “I have already carefully considered the said submission but do not find any force in that submission. The civil court is not the appellate court to departmental proceedings. Civil court can only interfere when there is grave injustice to the delinquent official by not adopting the proper procedure. There is nothing on the file to show that proper procedure has not been followed by the disciplinary authority before taking action against the delinquent official.” Still aggrieved the plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that one of the RSA No.1654 of 2009 -3- allegations against the plaintiff of allowing cash credit limit of Gagan Co- operative Handloom Industrial Society, Putlighar, Amritsar for the year 1991-92, without any power but there is no evidence in this regard but besides the above-said charges, there are many other charges according to the enquiry report. It is submitted that the main allegation was of sanction of cash credit limit which is not proved, therefore, punishment awarded is illegal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record with his assistance. There are three allegations against the appellant in which enquiry has been conducted. The lower Appellate Court has rightly observed that Civil court is not the Appellate Court to departmental proceedings, it can interfere when there is grave injustice to the delinquent official as proper procedure has not been adopted in the enquiry. However, nothing has been shown from the record that proper procedure has not been followed nor it has been argued at all before this court. Hence, I do not find any reason to tinker with the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below nor any question of law much less substantial has been raised. Hence, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 18.12.2009 JUDGE Meenu