In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.2107 of 2000 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:9.8.2011 G.P.S. Baweja .....Appellant v. Union Bank of India and another .....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL ..... 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ...... Present: Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate the appellant. Mr. B.B. Bagga, Advocate for the respondents. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. Appellant-plaintiff G.P.S. Baweja, Agricultural Field Officer (hereinafter referred to as `the appellant') is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, whereby his suit for declaration that the order dated 16.11.1989 removing him from service as illegal, wrong, null and void, mala fide, arbitrary, against rules and against the principle of natural justice was dismissed. The appellant was appointed as an Agricultural Field Officer by the Union Bank of India (for short - `the Bank') vide appointment letter R.S.A. No.2107 of 2000 (O&M) [2] dated 3.8.1981 and he joined his duties on 1.10.1981. The designation of the appellant was changed to Rural Development Officer. The appellant applied for leave on medical grounds due to his serious illness and said leave was sanctioned upto 22.2.1989. It was not sanctioned from 23.2.1989 in spite of his submitting an application for grant of leave on medical ground duly supported by a medical certificate. Shri Rajesh Arora was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to look into this matter and thereafter the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 16.11.1989 imposed penalty of removal of the appellant from service of the Bank. The appellant challenged the impugned order dated 16.11.1989 on the ground that the Disciplinary Authority was not the appointing authority of the appellant inasmuch as, the appellant was appointed by the Manager, Department of Personnel, Central Office, Union Bank of India, Bombay. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority had no power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. It was submitted by him that the was governed by Union Bank of India Officers and Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. It was submitted that no definite charge was communicated to the appellant, therefore, the impugned order was void. The reply of the appellant was not considered by the Inquiry Officer. It was submitted that the appellant could not participate in the inquiry proceedings on account of his serious illness. The Inquiry Officer illegally conducted the inquiry at the back of the appellant and the Inquiry Officer was not appointed by the appointing authority of the appellant. The charges against the appellant remained un- proved in the inquiry proceedings. He was not supplied copy of the report of the inquiry. The impugned order was not speaking order. The appellant R.S.A. No.2107 of 2000 (O&M) [3] accordingly prayed that the impugned order dated 16.11.1989 removing him from his service was illegal on the face of the record and a decree for declaration be granted in his favour. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Admittedly, in this case the appellant was proceeded against ex parte and there is voluminous evidence on record, showing that the appellant was reluctant to join the inquiry proceedings pending against him and due to the persistent absence of the delinquent employee, the Inquiry Officer had no option but to proceed ex parte against the delinquent employee. When due to the reasons known to the appellant, he did not join the inquiry proceedings then here, in my view, the appellant cannot claim that because the inquiry report was not supplied with the impugned order and it had vitiated the impugned order. In my view, no illegality has been committed when this order was supplied coupled with the inquiry report. The Civil Court has to see only as to whether some rule and regulations have been violated or not. The quantum of evidence, on the basis of which the disciplinary authority formed his opinion is not to be looked into by the Civil Court. So in the presence position of law, this Court is not required to look into as to whether the statement of Doctor has been recorded or not. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is believed that it has not been recorded, then this Court has got no jurisdiction to give its opinion regarding that. Otherwise also, from the inquiry proceedings, which are available on file, it may be noticed that the appellant has not been able to prove his case that the impugned order has been passed without R.S.A. No.2107 of 2000 (O&M) [4] violating any rule or regulation. There is no evidence on record to the effect that the appellant was really sick. There is no record to show that the appellant was admitted in any Government Hospital nor there is any evidence to this effect that he was really sick. The contention of the appellant that the impugned order (Ex.P.22) removing him from service was a non-speaking order cannot be accepted. It is not necessary that each and every fact should be discussed in the order. In my view, it is a speaking order. Under the circumstances, both the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff-appellant has failed to prove that he was entitled to get the relief claimed in this case. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Courts below, which may give rise to any substantial question of law in the present appeal. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. August 9, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*