R.S.A. No147 of 1993 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... R.S.A. No147 of 1993 Date of Decision: December 01, 2011 Ram Singh ... Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Mr.Divya Suri, Advocate and Mr.Amar Vivek, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent-State. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of both the Courts below vide which the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed. The case of the plaintiff-appellant was that he was appointed as Conductor in Punjab Roadways, Moga and was placed under suspension. The charge-sheet was served upon him to which he filed reply and vide order dated 13.07.1983, General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga terminated the services of the appellant. The appellant challenged this declaratory suit to be as illegal, ultra-vires, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice. He R.S.A. No147 of 1993 2 pleaded that inquiry was not conducted as per procedure envisaged under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). In written statement, the defendant-respondent controverted the allegations contained in the plaint and pleaded that inquiry was conducted as per procedure envisaged under the Rules and impugned order was passed after affording full opportunity to the appellant to defend his case. The employment and removal of the appellant from services was admitted. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: “1. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 2. Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD 3. Whether the order dated 13.07.1983 passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga is illegal and without jurisdiction?OPD 4. Relief.” Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. The trial Court after scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties and hearing them, held under Issue No.3 that order dated 13.07.1983 passed by the General Manager was quite legal. Consequently, suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed and the findings were further affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Dis-satisfied with the decision of both the Courts below, the present Regular Second Appeal has been filed, which is now meant for disposal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record of the case available on the file. R.S.A. No147 of 1993 3 Learned counsel for the appellant has argued mainly on the ground that the appellant was not given an opportunity to have the assistance of co-worker by the Inquiry Officer while conducting the inquiry. Further, the appellant was not conversant with the departmental Rules, procedure and legal aspects being not highly qualified and it caused a grave prejudice to him. It was incumbent upon the department to provide the assistance of co-worker as the department was assisted by the legal assistance. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and find no force in the contentions raised by him. I have also gone through the evidence led by the parties available on the file. It is evident that the Punishing Authority after careful examination of the evidence and circumstances brought on record terminated the services of the appellant vide impugned order dated 13.07.1983. The appellant was given full opportunity to have the assistance of co-worker but he did not seek any assistance. The respondent examined the Inquiry Officer as DW-1, who has proved the inquiry report. Entirely agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the Punishing Authority was of the view that the appellant did not deserve to retain in service anymore and, as such, show cause notice accompanied by copy of the finding of the inquiry report was given to him. The appellant was called upon to file any representation against the proposed penalty within 15 days but he failed to file any reply. The impugned order contained complete reasoning for removal of service of the appellant. Both the Courts have given categorical findings terming the order dated 13.07.1983 passed by the General Manager, who is competent Authority, to be legal. I have gone through the inquiry file and find that R.S.A. No147 of 1993 4 proper procedure as envisaged under the Rules has been followed by the Authorities. Conclusions of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court were containing complete reasoning holding the impugned order to be valid. As a result of my aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The judgments of both the Courts below are maintained. December 01, 2011 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE