RSA No. 2904 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 2904 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.03.2011. Narender Singh .......Appellant Vs. The Director General of Police (Haryana), ......Respondents Panchkula and others CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.S.Malik, Advocate for the appellant. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration challenging the order dated 26.2.1993. The case of the plaintiff in brief was that he was working with the defendants as UGC No. 444. Plaintiff proceeded on 15 days earned leave and was to report back on 29.10.1992. However, the plaintiff could not resume his duty on the said date due to sickness and had sent an intimation through telegram dated 28.10.1992 in this regard. Plaintiff had sought extension of his leave. Plaintiff resumed his duty on 22.1.1993 but by that time, inquiry officer had already completed exparte departmental inquiry against the plaintiff. No opportunity was granted to the plaintiff to put up his case. Vide the impugned order dated RSA No. 2904 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 26.2.1993, five annual increments with permanent effect of the plaintiff had been stopped. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff against the said order was dismissed vide order dated 11.5.1995. Revision petition, filed by the plaintiff against the said order, was dismissed vide order dated 25.12.1998. Mercy petition, filed by the plaintiff before defendant No.1, was also dismissed vide order dated 29.1.2003. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, admitted the fact that the plaintiff was serving with Haryana Police Department as UGC No. 444 at Sonepat. Many disciplinary proceedings had been conducted against the plaintiff and he was awarded the following punishments:- (i) 15 Days punishment of drill in the year 1977 for his willful absence from duty. (ii) 15 Days punishable of drill in the year 1985 for his willful absence from duty. (iii) Censure in year 1992 for his willful absence from duty. (iv) 5 future increments stopped with permanent effect in 1993 for his willful absence from duty. (v) Censure in 1993 for missing his identity card. Plaintiff had proceeded on 15 days earned leave and had failed to resume his duty on 29.10.1992 without any intimation. Departmental inquiry was held against the plaintiff. Notice was issued to the plaintiff by the inquiry officer but the plaintiff failed to participate in the departmental inquiry and was proceeded ex parte. On the basis of the inquiry, held against the plaintiff, the impugned punishment order was passed. RSA No. 2904 of 2010 (O&M) -3- On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the impugned order dated 26.2.93, 11.5.95, 25.12.98, 29.1.03 and 25.2.93 are illegal, void and not bindings upon the rights of the plaintiff and as such, are liable to be set aside? OPP 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 3. Whether the Civil court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 5. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2007, Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and the appeal filed by the plaintiff, challenging the said judgment and decree, was dismissed by District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 18.12.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the plaintiff had proceeded on 15 days earned leave. The plaintiff could not resume his duty after the expiry of his leave as he had fallen sick. In order to establish his case, plaintiff had examined the concerned doctors who had given treatment to the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. RSA No. 2904 of 2010 (O&M) -4- The scope of judicial review regarding interference with punishment order is very limited. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is only to see the method/manner of awarding punishment. The Court is only concerned with the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority. If the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority is according to rules and natural justice, then no interference with the punishment order is called for. The Civil Court cannot go into the merits of the case. In case, the finding of the Inquiry Officer is based on some evidence, then the Court cannot reappreicate the evidence or weigh the same like the Appellate Authority. So long as there is some evidence in support of the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. Some defect in the inquiry has to be pointed out before the Civil Court can interfere with the punishment order. Further more, if defect is pointed out then the delinquent employee has to show as to what prejudice has been caused to him on account of the said defect. It has been held in Bank of India and another vs. Degala Suryanarayana, J.T. 1999 (4) Supreme Court 489 that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the departmental proceedings. The Court exercising jurisdiction of judicial review is not to interfere with the finding of the fact arrived at in a departmental inquiry excepting in a case of mala fide or perversity. The Court cannot embark upon reappreciating the evidence or weigh the same like an Appellate Authority. The finding recorded by the disciplinary authority was immune from interference within the limited scope of power of judicial review applicable to the Court. RSA No. 2904 of 2010 (O&M) -5- In the present case, since the plaintiff did not resume his duty after the expiry of the leave period, departmental inquiry was ordered to be held against the plaintiff. Plaintiff did not appear in the departmental proceedings, although notices were issued to him on 24.12.1992 and 6.1.1993. The said notices were served on the plaintiff at his residential address. Thereafter, on the basis of the exparte inquiry held against the plaintiff, the impugned order dated 26.2.1993, whereby five annual increments of the plaintiff with cumulative effect were stopped, was passed. Since, the impugned order had been passed after following due procedure, the courts below had rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff as the civil court cannot sit as a court of appeal qua the impugned order. Plaintiff had also failed to establish that he had informed the department qua his illness or that he had sought extension. The doctors examined by the plaintiff, in order to substantiate his plea of sickness, were rightly disbelieved by the courts below as the certificates proved by the said witnesses did not bear any registration number. Plaintiff had failed to establish that he had purchased the requisite medicines qua the alleged serious illness, suffered by him. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 29, 2011 Gurpreet