In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... R.S.A. No.1135 of 1988 ..... Date of decision:15.11.2011 Kundan Singh .....Appellant v. Punjab State through the Collector, Amritsar .....Respondent .... 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. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent. ..... Mohinder Pal, J. This is regular second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned lower appellate Court vide which appeal of the appellant- plaintiff-Kundan Singh against the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been dismissed. Necessary facts for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant filed a suit against the Punjab State (respondent herein) for declaration that the order dated 16.11.1984 passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-II vide which his services were terminated was R.S.A. No.1135 of 1988 [2] arbitrary, mala fide, illegal, ultra vires, cryptic, without jurisdiction, in contravention of Civil Services Rules and rules of natural justice, void and hence not enforceable against the plaintiff on the ground that the inquiry was held in gross violation of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules’). The plaintiff was issued charge sheet, but he was not given the copy of the complaint and other documents so that he could give effective explanation. The assistance of co-employee was not provided to him and the Inspectors did not record the statements of bus passengers. His cash was not checked by the Inspectors and no medical examination of the plaintiff was got conducted to prove that he was under the influence of liquor at the time of checking of the bus. The inquiry held in the case was full of irregularities and was not held in accordance with Rule 8.11 of the Rules. On these averments, it was submitted that the impugned order was liable to be set aside. After notice, the suit was contested by the defendant with averments that the plaintiff while on duty on 23.1.1984 committed misappropriation of `36/- by not issuing tickets to 18 passengers from whom he had charged `2/- each. The inquiry was conducted according to the Rules. The plaintiff was afforded reasonable opportunity and the order was legal and valid order. The trial Court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the order No.12670-73/GM/Steno dated 16.11.1984 passed by the GM Punjab Roadways, Amritsar, is arbitrary, ultra vires, illegal and mala fide etc.? OPP 2. Whether the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD. R.S.A. No.1135 of 1988 [3] 3. Relief.” The trial Court decided the main issue No.1 against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The appellate Court further re-affirmed the finding of the trial Court and held that from the evidence placed on record it was abundantly clear that the appellant did not issue tickets to 18 passengers from whom he charged the money and finding no infirmity with the finding of the trial Court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of first appellate Court, the appellant-Kundan Singh came in regular second appeal. I have heard Mr. B.R. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ranvir S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State and have gone through the records of the case carefully. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the punishing authority acted in haste on the direction of the Divisional Manager, Chandigarh and suspended the appellant on 31.1.1984 and these sequences of events show that there was no fair and impartial inquiry held in the matter as the action was on the direction of higher authorities. Driver Gian Singh has not supported the version of the department during the inquiry proceedings, who was produced by the department and he was cross- examined without any permission or order of the Inquiry Officer. Similarly, Sansar Singh, Inspector was re-examined but no opportunity was given to the appellant to cross-examine this witness. The Inquiry Officer has not given any reason to disbelieve the independent witness produced by the appellant. No other independent witness or passenger of the bus was R.S.A. No.1135 of 1988 [4] examined during the inquiry. Even Mohan Lal, complainant has not been examined during inquiry to substantiate the charges. The punishing authority passed the impugned order without affording any opportunity to the appellant in this regard and as such the impugned order was liable to be set aside. It is further submitted that no statement of any passenger has been recorded at the time of checking of the bus or during the inquiry. Under these circumstances, the impugned order could not be passed just on hearsay evidence of the Inspectors alone. Accordingly, it has been prayed that in absence of any documentary evidence having been supplied to the appellant, this appeal was liable to be accepted. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the appellant has been afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the inquiry proceedings and there is not an iota of evidence that principles of natural justice have been violated in this case. On 23.1.1984, while the appellant was on duty with bus from Amritsar to Kurukshetra, Mohan Lal and Sansar Singh, Inspectors of Flying Squad checked the bus of the appellant at Shahbad Toll Tax Barrier. The appellant, who was conductor, bolted the door of the bus from inside and the Inspectors climbed on the back ladder of the bus and reached upto the police station where the bus was stopped. 18 passengers were found without tickets, who allegedly had paid `2/- each to the Conductor and in this manner he misappropriated `36/- received from the 18 passengers. He was also found under the influence of liquor at the time of duty and the Inspectors made report to the Divisional Manager, who vide his letter dated 27.1.1984 (Ex.P4) asked the General Manager, the punishing authority to take action against the appellant according to the R.S.A. No.1135 of 1988 [5] Rules. Normally, the Courts should not interfere in the inquiry proceedings as the Court is not to sit in judgment over the findings of the Inquiry Officer and scope of interference of the Court is limited to the extent that it is to see that the principles of natural justice have been followed and proper procedure has been adopted during the course of inquiry. However, the Courts can interfere in the findings of the Inquiry Officer if there is flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the same are passed upon no evidence whatsoever. Under these circumstances, the order of termination of services of the appellant was rightly held to be legal by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have dealt with the factual and legal position governing the case of the plaintiff-appellant in great detail. In the circumstances, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by both 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. November 15, 2011. (Mohinder Pal) Judge *hsp*