Regular Second Appeal No. 2992 of 1986 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2992 of 1986 Date of decision: 23.03.2010 Balwinder Singh ...Appellant Versus The Punjab State and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. M.S. Bedi, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. Having remained unsuccessful before the trial Court as well as before the First Appellate Court, Balwinder Singh, Conductor has filed this Regular Second Appeal to impugn the order of his termination. The appellant had filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that order dated 30.03.1979 passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ludhiana Depot and order dated 08.11.1982 passed by the Director, State Transport Punjab were null, void and were having no effect on the plaintiff. On 30.03.1979, the appellant was removed from service and his appeal was dismissed on 08.11.1982. He had challenged these orders on the ground that the appellant was not supplied necessary documents alongwith the charge sheet and also that the inquiry conducted in these cases were illegal and had not been held Regular Second Appeal No. 2992 of 1986 2 in accordance with law and procedure as required under the law. It was also pleaded that the appellant was not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself by the inquiry officer. The suit was contested by the respondent-State. The State had objected the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit. It was stated that the orders passed by the General Manager and Director were in accordance with law. Other allegations made in the suit were also denied. The trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the order dated 30.3.1979 and 8.11.1982 of defendants No. 3 and 2 respectively is null and void and is not operative? OPP 2. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to maintain the suit?OPD 3. Relief. On the basis of evidence led, the trial Court dismissed the suit against which the appellant filed an appeal. The appeal was dismissed leading to filing of present Regular Second Appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has made two fold submissions before me. He would first submit that the provisions of Rule 8.3 (b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') were violated. His submission is that the list of the documents was not supplied to him alongwith the memo of charges. This pleas was negated on the ground that the allegation made against the appellant was supported not by the documentary evidence but on the basis of oral evidence of the inspector, who had checked the bus, which was Regular Second Appeal No. 2992 of 1986 3 conducted by the appellant where 66 passengers were found travelling without tickets and who had not been issued tickets. This was taken as dereliction of duty and an act of causing willful loss to the Punjab Roadways. Even then, I asked the learned counsel for the appellant to specify which document had not been supplied to the appellant, which was relied upon and was thus needed by him for his defence. He, however, could not specify any document which was relevant, relied upon and had not been supplied to the appellant. Accordingly, at this stage this line of submission that any prejudice was caused to the appellant on this ground cannot be accepted. The counsel, thereafter, would contend that the provisions of Rule 8.18 of the rules were also violated. This rule requires officers acting as inquiry officer to generally question the government employee in regard to the circumstances appearing against the delinquent employee in the evidence for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him so as to avoid prejudice being caused to him on this count. This is with an aim to give opportunity to the delinquent employee to explain any circumstance or evidence, which is appearing against him so that it does not remain unexplained and thus taken into consideration to pass the order. I have perused the inquiry file. After closing of the prosecution case, the inquiry officer had questioned the delinquent employee and as such it cannot be said that this was a case where the provisions of Rule 8.18 of the rules were violated. This was also Regular Second Appeal No. 2992 of 1986 4 so noticed by the First Appellate Court. The appellant was also questioned if he wanted to lead any evidence or if he wanted to make any final statement. Thus, the basis of this submission is not made out from the record of case file. The question of law that must arise for consideration in this case has rightly been decided and would not call for interference at the stage of Regular Second Appeal. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. March 23, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE