R.S.A. No.1825 of 1985 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.1825 of 1985 Date of Decision: 8.9.2008 Surinder Pal .....Appellant Vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Anuraj Chopra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. H.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Challenge in this Regular Second Appeal is to judgements and decrees passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ist Class, Muktsar and the District Judge, Faridkot, dismissing the appellant's suit and appeal, respectively. The plaintiff was employed as a Conductor in Punjab Roadways on 10.4.1974. An enquiry was initiated against the appellant for embezzlement of Rs.10.60 being bus fare. The Enquiry Officer found the appellant guilty of misappropriation and consequently his services were terminated on 16.5.1980. A departmental appeal was also dismissed. The appellant, thereafter, filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 16.5.1980 terminating his services was illegal and without jurisdiction. The respondents, after appearance submitted that as the enquiry proceedings did not suffer from any error of law or violation of any procedural provision that may have led to any substantial prejudice to the R.S.A. No.1825 of 1985 2 appellant, the suit be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :- “1. Whether the order dated 16.5.1980, whereby the services of the plaintiff were terminated is illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice ? OPP 2. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit ? OPP 3. Whether the written statement has been filed by a duly authorised and proper person ? OPP 4. Relief.” After parties adduced evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit and held that the order of termination and the enquiry proceedings did not suffer from any error of law, violation of any rule of procedure, as to render them illegal and void. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal. The District Judge, Faridkot, affirmed the findings returned by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The only point urged by counsel for the appellant is based upon a judgement reported as Dhup Singh Kanungo V. The State of Haryana and others, 1969 SLR 436, wherein it has been held that in case a copy of the complaint, which forms the basis for the charge sheet is not supplied to the delinquent official, the disciplinary proceedings, including the enquiry and the order of dismissal, would be void. Counsel for the appellant submits that the complaint was filed R.S.A. No.1825 of 1985 3 by one Karnail Singh. The appellant was not provided with any copy of the complaint and, therefore, was prejudiciously hampered in putting forth his defence against the charge sheet. It is submitted that both the trial Court and the first appellate Court returned incorrect findings that the complaint/report prepared by Karnal Singh before service of the charge sheet upon the appellant was supplied to the appellant. It is contended that the respondent has not produced any evidence to substantiate the assertion that the complaint filed by Karnail Singh was made available to the appellant. It is further submitted that the first appellate Court's finding that the report was either given to the appellant or the contents of the report were known to him is vague and, therefore, indicative of the fact that the complaint was never served upon the appellant. Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that findings of fact returned by the Courts below do not call for interference. Both the trial Court, as also the first appellate Court have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the complaint/report was received by the appellant, as it is so reflected in the contents of his reply filed to the charge sheet. It is submitted that though there is no quarrel with the proposition of law set down in Dhup Singh's case (supra), but this judgement does not apply to the present case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgements. It is true that where the delinquent official is deprived of the original complaint, that forms basis for the charge sheet, such an official, if eventually punished, may validly urge prejudice sufficient to hold that the enquiry proceedings and the order of punishment are null and void, R.S.A. No.1825 of 1985 4 dependent, however, on prejudice being established as a fact. However, such a conclusion would necessarily proceed from a finding that the original complaint was not served upon the appellant. In the present case, as is apparent from the opinion recorded by the trial Court, the complaint filed by Karnail Singh was communicated to the appellant. Karnail Singh, Inspector, submitted his report on 2.6.1979, whereas the appellant submitted his reply to the complaint on 4.6.1979. A perusal of the complaint at page 27 and the appellant's reply at page 29 of the file Ex.P-2, leaves no manner of doubt that before the appellant proceeded to file his reply, he was aware of and in fact received a copy of the complaint. It would also be necessary to mention here that the charge sheet dated 13.6.1979 contains the details mentioned in the complaint/report submitted by Karnail Singh. The above finding was affirmed by the appellate Court, by holding that the appellant's reply available at page 29 of Ex.P-2, clearly discloses that the appellant was either aware of the contents of the complaint or a copy had been supplied to him. The findings of facts are, in no manner, illegal or perverse, for want of reference or consideration of material evidence and, therefore, do not call for any interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As no factual basis exists for invoking the law as set up in Dhup Singh's case (supra), the appeal is dismissed. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. No order as to costs. 8.9.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE