Regular Second Appeal No.1128 of 1986. -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No.1128 of 1986. Date of decision:11.2.2008. The State of Punjab and another. ...Appellants. Versus Dina Nath. ...Respondent. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr. Yatendar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. This appeal is directed by the State of Punjab and another against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.1985 passed by Shri M.L.Singhal, the then Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which he accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit for declaration, for declaring impugned order dated 4.5.1984 as illegal,filed by the plaintiff after setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1985 delivered by Shri Dalip Singh, the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Pathankot. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration impugning order Regular Second Appeal No.1128 of 1986. -2- dated 4.5.1984 passed by defendant No.2 for with-holding five annual increments with cumulative effect from the pay of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was appointed as a driver in Punjab Roadways, Pathankot in the year 1966 under the control and supervision of defendant No.2. He was served with show cause notice on 27.3.1983. It is alleged that the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was illegal and against the principles of natural justice as the Enquiry Officer did not make the plaintiff aware regarding the right of having the assistance of a legal practitioner or a co-worker. The Enquiry Officer manoeuvred to get the signatures of the plaintiff on certain papers without explaining the nature of the alleged charges. In this way, the Enquiry Officer played the role of the Prosecutor. Ultimately, the Punishing Authority has passed impugned order dated 4.5.1984. The same had been challenged in the suit. The defendants filed written statement taking preliminary objections that Civil Court has no jurisdiction. On merits, it is pleaded that the enquiry report against the plaintiff was perfectly legal and valid. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1.Whether the order No.820/21 dated 4.5.1984 passed by defendant No.2 is illegal, null and void etc.?OPD. 2.Whether this court does not have the jurisdiction to try this suit?OPD. Regular Second Appeal No.1128 of 1986. -3- 3.Whether the plaintiff served the defendants with notice u/s 80 CPC before filing of this suit. If not, to what effect?OPP. 4.Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties?OPD. 5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as requested for?OPP. 6.Relief. The learned trial Court returned findings on issue Nos.1 and 5 against the plaintiff whereas the remaining issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff. In view of findings on issue Nos.1 and 5, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 24.7.1985 passed by Shri Dalip Singh, the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Gurdaspur. Feeling dis-satisfied, the plaintiff/appellant preferred an appeal. Shri M.L.Singhal, the then Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur accepted the appeal holding that proper enquiry has not been conducted. No Presenting Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer himself examined the PWs. The plaintiff got no notice when the PWs. were examined on 21.1.1981. Ultimately, the learned Additional District Judge reached the conclusion that the enquiry was against the principles of natural justice and consequently he accepted the appeal and declared the impugned order as illegal vide impugned judgment Regular Second Appeal No.1128 of 1986. -4- and decree dated 20.12.1985. Feeling aggrieved with the above-said judgment and decree, the defendants have preferred the present Regular Second Appeal. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record of the case. Mr. Yatinder Sharma, the Deputy Advocate General, Punjab was asked on the last date of hearing to formulate substantial questions of law but no question of law has been formulated. Otherwise also, from a bare reading of judgments of both the Courts below, no substantial question of law has arisen. The learned first Appellate Court has given a finding that enquiry is not in accordance with rules and consequently the punishment was held to be illegal. That being a finding of fact, cannot be interfered with in the Regular Second Appeal. Otherwise also, the impugned order relates to the year 1984. So, interference in the impugned order, after a period of about 24 years, would not be in consonance with justice. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs, so far as this appeal is concerned. February 11,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge