RSA No.2952 of 2008 - 1 - **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2952 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision:02.08.2010. Avtar Singh ...Appellant Versus Punjab State Civil Supplies ...Respondents. Corporation Limited & others. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. C.S.Bakshi, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The plaintiff is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which his suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been dismissed. Plaintiff was working as an Inspector (Grade-I) in the office of District Manager, Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited [for short “PUNSUP”], Patiala. The facts of this case are not required to be recapitulated as they are given in detail in the judgment of both the Courts below by which a concurrent finding of fact has been recorded against the appellant on the basis of evidence led before them. The relevant finding of the learned First Appellate Court reads as under: - RSA No.2952 of 2008 - 2 - **** “11. Perusal; of the documents Ex.P20 and P21 shows that period of four days have been fixed for submission of dispatched documents by inspectorate staff and the said period can only be extended in case of disputed cases and not otherwise. The directions have been issued to the District Manager, PUNSUP for conducting investigation in case of late submission of dispatched documents and to fix responsibility and consequently to recover the loss suffered by the department for the concerned employees. From the evidence brought on record, it has been proved that as per show cause notice Ex.P4 the documents were not submitted by the plaintiff within time frame as has been fixed, as per rules and directions. Trial Court has rightly held that the explanation rendered by the plaintiff, he received the documents late, so he submitted the same further, late, is not plausible and is not sufficient to escape the liability. It has also rightly held that nothing has been brought on record to show, that if any efforts were made, during the period in between, in which the plaintiff received the documents and that he submitted the documents at the earliest after receiving the same. This fact RSA No.2952 of 2008 - 3 - **** is not disputed that the plaintiff was served with show cause notice and was given an opportunity to file reply to all the said allegations. After he filed reply Ex.P6, to the show cause notice Ex.P4, then the impugned order was passed. The trial court has rightly held that thus it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to say that he was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. Trial court has also rightly held that it is settled proposition of law that the court is not to sit in appeal over and above the Enquiry Officer and to scan the material, which was presented before the Enquiry Officer and the court can adjudicate if the evidence rendered before the Enquiry Officer was justified for his findings. It has also rightly held that if the finding arrived in the domestic enquiry are based on evidence, which has probative value, then the court cannot review the same. Trial court has further rightly held that the order of recovery from the pay and with holding of annual increment is a minor penalty, which does not require for holding regular enquiry. It has further been held that when show cause notice was served upon the plaintiff, he was given opportunity to file reply to the same and when after RSA No.2952 of 2008 - 4 - **** considering reply of the plaintiff, the impugned order has been passed, then there is sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice. Trial Court has further rightly held that no particular time period was fixed under rules for initiation of the departmental enquiry, so the finding of the ld. lower court upon issue No.3 is affirmed and this issue is decided against the plaintiff/appellant.” Learned counsel for the appellant has though argued with great vehemence that the show-cause-notice was time barred but he could not point out the time limit fixed under the Rules for initiation of departmental inquiry. The appellant has been found remiss in discharge of his official duties which has caused loss to the respondent/PUNSUP. As a matter of fact, no question of law much-less substantial has been raised by the counsel for the appellant in this appeal as envisaged under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. As such, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. August 02, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod JUDGE