R.S.A. No.3992 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL No.3992 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: 26 th APRIL, 2011 Baljit Singh .... Appellant Versus State of Haryana & others. .... Respondents CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Mr. R. K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kohal Dev, Advocate for the appellant. * * * * L.N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff Baljit Singh who was successful in the trial court but has been non-suited by the lower appellate court has filed the instant second appeal. Plaintiff was working as Conductor in Haryana Roadways. Chargesheet for major penalty under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 (in short, the Rules) was issued to him alleging inter alia that on 16.05.1994 while the plaintiff was Conductor of Bus on Chandigarh-Delhi route, he received various amounts from different passengers and did not issue tickets to them and embezzled the Government money. Vinod Kumar Batra, Sub-Inspector who was travelling in the bus made report about it and also that the plaintiff had also misbehaved with him. After plaintiff submitted reply to the chargesheet, Enquiry Officer was appointed. Plaintiff was also placed under suspension. Enquiry Officer held R.S.A. No.3992 of 2010 -2- the charge to be proved against the plaintiff. Thereafter, show-cause notice was issued to the plaintiff and after considering his reply and hearing him in person, defendant No.3-punishing-authority-vide order dated 09.12.1999, imposed punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect. However defendant No.2 (Transport Commissioner) issued show-cause notice under Rule 14 of the Rules to the plaintiff for enhancement of the punishment. After considering reply of the plaintiff to the show-cause notice and after granting him opportunity of hearing, defendant No.2 vide order dated 14.05.2003 enhanced the punishment and brought the plaintiff to minimum of his pay scale permanently and also treated his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the year 1994 as 'integrity doubtful'. Plaintiff in the suit challenged the order of suspension dated 20.05.1994, punishment order dated 09.12.1999 passed by defendant No.3 and enhanced punishment order dated 14.05.2003 including adverse entry in ACR for the year 1994 passed by defendant No.2. Defendants justified the aforesaid actions. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 29.04.2006 decreed the plaintiff's suit. However, first appeal preferred by the defendants has been allowed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh vide judgment and decree dated 10.02.2010 and thereby suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed instant second appeal. I have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned senior counsel for the appellant vehemently contended R.S.A. No.3992 of 2010 -3- that it was a case of 'no evidence' during departmental enquiry and therefore, the impugned orders were rightly set aside by the trial court. It was contended that the lower appellate court has erroneously held the suit to be time barred qua punishment order dated 09.12.1999. It was submitted that cause of action to challenge the said punishment order revived to the plaintiff on the passing of enhanced punishment order dated 14.05.2003 and consequently the suit filed on 11.09.2004 is well within limitation. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but find myself unable to agree with the same. It was not a case of 'no evidence' during departmental enquiry because Vinod Kumar Batra star witness of the department appeared as witness during departmental enquiry and supported the chargesheet against the plaintiff. Consequently the plaintiff was held guilty of the chargesheet against him by the enquiry officer. In these circumstances, it cannot be said to be case of 'no evidence' in the enquiry. However, sufficiency or adequacy of the evidence is not to be judged or evaluated by the Civil Court because Civil Court does not sit in appeal over the finding recorded in the departmental enquiry. There has been no irregularity or illegality in conducting the departmental enquiry. Full and proper opportunity was given to the plaintiff at every stage in the departmental action. Lower appellate court has, therefore, rightly set aside the finding of the trial court to the contrary. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned actions of the defendants cannot be said to be illegal or null and void in any manner whatsoever. Under Rule 14 of the Rules, the Government or the Head of the Department has right to increase the penalty imposed by the punishing authority. This power was R.S.A. No.3992 of 2010 -4- exercised by defendant No.2-Head of the Department. Consequently, impugned order passed by defendant No.2 also does not suffer from any infirmity. It may be added that the plaintiff as Conductor of bus has been found guilty of embezzlement of money. In this view of the matter, enhanced punishment imposed by defendant No.2 cannot be said to be excessive or grossly disproportionate to the nature of charge. On the contrary, in the case of such charge being proved, even punishment of dismissal from service has been upheld by the courts. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court. It may be added that the plaintiff did not challenge the original punishment order dated 09.12.1999 and, therefore, accepted the finding of the enquiry officer. Show-cause notice for enhancement of punishment was issued to the plaintiff by defendant No.2 in the year 2002, but in spite thereof, the plaintiff did not challenge the punishment order dated 09.12.1999 within limitation period of three years. Contention of counsel for the appellant that the said order merged in order dated 14.05.2003 and therefore, could be challenged while challenging order dated 14.05.2003 cannot be accepted. Even if enhanced punishment order had to be set aside for some reason, the original punishment order would have revived and would not have become illegal or null and void in any manner and could not be challenged by the plaintiff after expiry of limitation period. However, irrespective of it, as noticed hereinbefore, there is no infirmity, much less illegality, in impugned order dated 09.12.1999 or impugned order dated 14.05.2003. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant second R.S.A. No.3992 of 2010 -5- appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for determination in this second appeal. Finding of the lower appellate court against the plaintiff-appellant is not shown to be perverse or illegal nor it is based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence. Consequently the said finding does not warrant interference in second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed in limine. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 26th April, 2011 'raj'