RSA No.1260 of 2011 (O & M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1260 of 2011(O & M) Date of Decision: 16.03.2011. Baldev Singh ……Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and another …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. H. S. Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.3520-C of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. Main Appeal Plaintiff-Baldev Singh, having failed in both the Courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. The plaintiff-appellant was employed as Bus Conductor in Punjab Roadways. On 03.11.2001, his bus was checked by Inspectors Beant Singh and Harbhajan Singh. It was found that fare amount of Rs.15/- each had been taken by the plaintiff from four RSA No.1260 of 2011 (O & M) - 2 - passengers, but tickets had not been issued to them and the plaintiff had thus embezzled the said amount. On these averments, the plaintiff was charge-sheeted for major penalty. After regular departmental inquiry, the plaintiff was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated 17.03.2004 which was upheld in departmental appeal. In the suit, the plaintiff-appellant challenged the dismissal order as affirmed in appeal alleging the same to be null and void as the inquiry was not proper and the plaintiff was not given reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the departmental witnesses. He was also not afforded personal hearing. Defendants contested the suit and pleaded that the inquiry was fair and the plaintiff was afforded opportunity of defending himself. Impugned dismissal order as affirmed in appeal has been defended by the defendants. Various other pleas were also raised Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 22.11.2008 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2010. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. RSA No.1260 of 2011 (O & M) - 3 - Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that defendants’ witness Ashok Kumar DW-1 stated from record in cross-examination that the plaintiff was not afforded opportunity of cross-examining the departmental witness Beant Singh, Inspector during regular inquiry. It was accordingly contended that the inquiry was not fair and the inquiry was in violation of principles of natural justice. The contention appears to be very forceful and attractive, but in fact is devoid of merit. Inquiry proceedings as shown by counsel for the appellant reveal that the plaintiff after initially joining the enquiry absented from the inquiry later on. He remained absent from the inquiry inspite of notices sent to him at later stage. Accordingly, he was proceeded ex parte in the inquiry. It was in this view of the matter that there has been no cross-examination of Beant Singh witness examined by department during the inquiry. For this situation, the plaintiff-appellant has to blame himself. As regards personal hearing, the plaintiff himself admitted that he had been given opportunity of personal hearing. For the reasons aforesaid, it is manifest that the inquiry was conducted fairly. Principles of natural justice were followed. Consequently, there is no infirmity much less illegality in the impugned punishment order of dismissal as upheld in departmental appeal. Both the Courts below have arrived at concurrent finding against the plaintiff-appellant. The said finding is based on evidence led by the parties and is supported by cogent reasons. The said RSA No.1260 of 2011 (O & M) - 4 - finding cannot be said to be perverse or illegal in any manner nor it is based on misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Accordingly, the said finding does not warrant interference in exercise of second appellate jurisdiction. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in the instant second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine being devoid of merit. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 16.03.2011 A.kaundal