Regular Second Appeal No. 139 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 139 of 2003 Date of Order: 07.10.2009 State of Haryana and others ....Appellants Versus Darbara Singh ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Himanshu Raj,A.A.G. Haryana for the appellants. Mr. Manohar Lal, Advocate for the respondent RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The State of Haryana challenges the judgments and decrees dated 09.04.1999 and 13.09.2002, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sirsa and the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing their appeal. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for declaration that the order terminating his service is illegal and void as the enquiry report is not based upon any evidence. In response, the appellants pleaded that while driving a bus, the respondent caused the death of a scooterist and as negligence is writ large on the respondent's conduct, the enquiry officer and the punishing authority rightly held the respondent guilty of negligence and, therefore, passed an order terminating his services. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the order dated 19.08.1994 passed by defendant no.2 is liable to be set aside as alleged?OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP Regular Second Appeal No. 139 of 2003 -2- 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct?OPD 6. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit?OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has equally efficacious remedy, if so, its effect?OPD 8. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC?OPD 9. Relief.” After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court decreed the suit by holding the case against the respondent was one of no evidence, as the statement made by the respondent and by the person who reported the matter, clearly shows that there was no evidence before the enquiry officer to record a finding that the respondent was negligent. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement and decree, the State of Haryana filed an appeal. Vide judgement and decree dated 13.09.2002, the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellants submits that the documents tendered in evidence have been wrongly rejected by the courts below. The fact that no witness came forward to prove these documents, is insufficient to reject these documents as they form part of the official record maintained by the department. It is further submitted that civil courts cannot appraise evidence or record findings with respect to evidence produced before an Regular Second Appeal No. 139 of 2003 -3- enquiry officer. The jurisdiction of a civil court is confined to determining whether the enquiry officer or the punishing authority has made any error of law. The courts below have however, embarked upon a detailed appraisal of the evidence adduced before the enquiry officer, thereby exceeding their jurisdiction and rendering their judgments null and void. It is further argued that as the respondent did not file a departmental appeal the suit should have been dismissed summarily. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that a perusal of the statement by Bhagat Ram, who appeared before the enquiry officer and the statement made by the respondent clearly prove that as one side of the road was closed, the respondent had to take the bus to the other side of the road. A scooterist., who was travelling on wrong side of the road and without a helmet, rammed into the center of the bus and eventually lost his life. It is argued that as there is no evidence before the enquiry officer or the punishing authority alleging negligence, the findings recorded by the punishing authority that the respondent was negligent are perverse, unreasonable and arbitrary. It is further submitted that on the same set of facts, the respondent has been acquitted by a criminal court. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgements and the questions of law framed by counsel for the appellants and express my inability to accede to the arguments raised or to hold that the courts below have committed any error of law as would give rise to the questions of law framed by the appellants. Both the trial court and the first appellate court have held that the case against the respondent is one of no evidence. The courts below have considered the statement of Bhagat Ram, who reported the matter to the authorities to hold that there was no material before the enquiry officer to indict the respondent. Even if his statement is accepted, it does not raise an inference of negligence whether culpable or otherwise. The statement is Regular Second Appeal No. 139 of 2003 -4- that the respondent was driving a bus. As one side of the road was closed, he took the bus on the other side. A scooterist, who was not wearing a helmet, came from the wrong side and rammed into the center of the bus leading to his death. This is the sum and substance are the allegations against the respondent. The courts below have rightly concluded that there was no material before the enquiry officer or the punishing authority to record a finding of negligence. I find no reason, whether in fact or in law to differ with the findings recorded by the courts below. If findings recorded by an enquiry officer or by a punishing authority are not based upon any material, a civil court is not only empowered but is obliged to set aside such an order. It would also be necessary to mention here that the respondent has been acquitted by a criminal court of the charge of causing death by negligence. The argument that documents produced by the appellants were rejected as they were not proved is irrelevant as even if they are accepted they would not advance the appellants' case in any manner. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as no substantial question of law arises for consideration, the appeal is dismissed. October 07, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE