IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2829 of 2009 Date of Decision : August 12, 2009 State of Punjab and others ....Appellants Versus Jaswanti and another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. T.P.S. MANN, J. Suit for declaration filed by Jagan Nath, husband and father, respectively, of the respondents, was decreed with costs by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala on 13.3.2001. Order dated 28.8.1995 passed by the Conservator of Forests while terminating the services of the plaintiff and order of the Chief/Principal Conservator of Forests dated 24.11.1997 while dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff were declared illegal and null and void. The plaintiff was held entitled to continuity in service with all rights, benefits and privileges which he would have obtained and enjoyed if his services had not been terminated and also entitled to pay and allowances as would have accrued to him while in service alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court R.S.A. No. 2829 of 2009 -2- was challenged by the defendants-appellants by filing the first appeal, which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala on 7.3.2009. Aggrieved of the same, the defendants are now before this Court in the second appeal which they have filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. One Faquir Mohd. was the Forest Guard of Khanouri beat, who was prematurely retired. On his retirement, Jagan Nath-plaintiff was asked to take the charge. However, admittedly, Faquir Mohd. had not handed over the charge to the plaintiff and the latter was asked to take the charge as such. Afterwards, as per the Stock Register, the plaintiff made calculations of the trees in the said beat and found shortage of 1215 trees. In that regard, he submitted his report to the Forest Ranger. The charge against the plaintiff was that he had wrongly shown the shortage of 1215 trees. Instead, he had got the trees cut and misappropriated the amount, causing loss to the Government. As per the testimony of PW1-Labh Singh, Forest Ranger, the plaintiff, after taking the charge of the Khanouri beat, prepared the list and showed the shortage of 1215 trees, which list was submitted to him and he found it to be correct. If that be so, there was no material with the Enquiry Officer to conclude that the plaintiff misappropriated the trees by wrongly showing the shortage of 1215 trees. During the enquiry proceedings, aforementioned Faquir R.S.A. No. 2829 of 2009 -3- Mohd., who was also jointly charged sheeted alongwith the plaintiff, told the Enquiry Officer that 435 trees were standing in the beat whereas the plaintiff with a malafide intention had showed them less in the charge report. It was apparent that Faquir Mohd. had his own reasons to save his skin so as to shift the liability on to the plaintiff about the misappropriation of 435 trees. Neither there was any independent evidence on the record nor any documentary evidence to show that it was the plaintiff, who had misappropriated the amount of 1215 trees. It was Sardara Singh, who was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Said Sardara Singh, while appearing as DW1, stated that he did not make any enquiry into the stand taken by Faquir Mohd. about the cutting of 435 trees by the plaintiff. The mere fact that the plaintiff had shown the shortage in the number of trees after expiry of a period of 33 days from the taking over of the charge was no ground to hold him guilty. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, learned Courts below came to a categorical conclusion that the report of the Enquiry Officer was totally perverse and based upon no evidence at all. Resultantly, the order passed on the report of the Enquiry Officer regarding termination of the services of the plaintiff was also illegal. The plaintiff had died during the pendency of the appeal. His widow, Smt. Jaswanti and his daughter Rani, were brought on record as his R.S.A. No. 2829 of 2009 -4- legal representatives. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below cannot be said to be either perverse or suffering from any illegality or infirmity. These findings cannot be disturbed in a second appeal, which is maintainable only on some substantial question of law and not otherwise. None of the substantial questions of law, as formulated by learned counsel for the appellants, arises for determination. Moreover, it would be a case of extreme hardship for the legal representatives of the plaintiff in case they are now made to suffer by withdrawing the concessions which had been granted to the plaintiff by the learned trial Court while decreeing his suit. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed, in limine. ( T.P.S. MANN ) August 12, 2009 JUDGE satish