IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3146 of 2007 Date of Decision : May 02, 2008 Jang Bahadur Singh ....Appellant Versus Punjab State Electricity Board .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate for the appellant. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellant was dismissed by learned trial Court and so also his appeal by learned first appellate Court. He has now filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to him by Board before passing the impugned order of withholding of his two annual grade increments. It has also been submitted that the appellant was wrongly held guilty for the charge of misconduct inspite of the fact that he joined as Sub Divisional Officer (Operation), Sub Division , Lalru on 8.5.1999, while the alleged discrepancy related to October, 1988. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to refer to any provision in the Punishment and Appeal Rules of the Punjab State Electricity Board governing his service which may require giving of opportunity of being personally heard before the passing of the impugned Regular Second Appeal No. 3146 of 2007 order. Therefore, there is no merit in the first argument submitted by learned counsel for the appellant. Insofar as the argument concerning the detection of the discrepancy in October, 1988, it may be noticed that the appellant joined the post of S.D.O. (Operation) at Lalru on 8.5.1999 but he did not maintain the verification register, which was kept blank for a considerable time. He made no attempt to complete the same, even after he joined as S.D.O. (Operation) with a view to avoiding the charge. The appellant pleaded that no verification register was issued by Senior Executive Engineer. However, this plea cannot cut any ice as the register was already available in the Sub Division. The finding of the Enquiry Officer which was based on the evidence led before it, cannot be disturbed or the evidence reviewed by civil Court. The truth or otherwise of the charge was the matter which required the disciplinary authority to look into the same. Even, the order awarding the punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments cannot be interfered with by the civil Court, more so, when the learned lower Courts have concurrently held against the appellant. No case is made out for any interference in the same. None of the substantial questions of law, as claimed by the appellant arises for determination. As the appeal is without any merit, the same is, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) May 02, 2008 JUDGE satish - 2- Regular Second Appeal No. 3146 of 2007 Whether to be referred to the Reporters : YES / NO - 3-