IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 1288 of 2009 Date of decision: 23-3-2009 State of Haryana and others … Appellants versus Ganga Bishan … Respondents CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Sukant Gupta, Addl. AG Haryana, for the appellants. … ARVIND KUMAR, J: This is defendants' second appeal directed against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed. Plaintiff in his suit pleaded that he has been working as Peon on regular basis in the District Industries Centre, Jind, since 11.8.1981. A departmental enquiry was held against him in regard to charges, namely, (i) misplacing of 17 loan files; (ii) accepting illegal gratification of Rs.350/- from Dharambir Singh; and (iii) accepting illegal gratification of Rs.500/- from Chander Parkash. Vide order dated 17.6.2002, he was awarded punishment of reduction of pay to the minimum of pay scale of Rs.2550-3200/- and resultantly, his pay was reduced from Rs.3040/- to Rs.2550/-. According to the plaintiff, charge-sheet dated 27.3.2000 served upon him was vague, indefinite and not specific and further, the reply filed by him to the same was not considered. The allegations of accepting illegal gratification are vague, without date and time and that he was not the custodian of the files, the misplacement of which is alleged. Further, according to the plaintiff, vide order dated 5.10.1999, he was placed under suspension for which he was paid subsistence allowance and thereafter, he was reinstated on 28.3.2000 but there is no reference as to the fate of the suspension period. He thus, R.S.A. No. 1288 of 2009 -2- claimed pay and allowances for the said period. He therefore, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Government of Haryana, Department of Industries but the same was returned to him to present the same before the Director of Industries, Haryana, which he did but the said Authority has also not decided his appeal. Hence,the present suit. Upon notice of the suit, defendants in their written statement took up the plea that the plaintiff was found negligent in performing his duties and for acceptance of illegal gratification from Dharambir and Chander Parkash. They thus, defended the impugned order by claiming it to be legal and valid. Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence, vide judgment and decree dated 21.7.2008 decreed the suit of the plaintiff and set aside the impugned order imposing penalty. It has been observed following the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar, 1994(1) RSJ 443(SC), that there was a flaw in not supplying the copy of enquiry report before issuing the second show cause notice to the plaintiff coupled with the infirmity in not mentioning the period during which the plaintiff is to be put in the minimum scale, besides nothing was explained as to what should be the effect of suspension period from 5.10.1999 to 28.3.2000, whether it is to be restricted to the subsistence allowance or not. Therefore, from that stage, the punishing Authority, defendant No.2, was given liberty to proceed afresh after providing copy of the enquiry report and taking into consideration the reply and then to proceed in accordance with the Haryana Civil Services(Punishment and Appeal) Rules. The appeal filed by the defendants as also the cross- objections preferred by the plaintiff were dismissed by the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 19.12.2008. In this second appeal, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the State has not been able to convince this Court as to how the findings so recorded by the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record. No question of law, much less substantial, arises in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed in limine. ( ARVIND KUMAR ) March 23, 2009 JUDGE JS