R.S.A. No. of 2435 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... R.S.A. No. of 2435 of 1989 Date of Decision: November 18, 2011 State of Punjab through Collector, Ferozepur ... Appellant VERSUS Pritam Singh ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present: Mr.Ranvir S.Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant. Mr.Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the respondent. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur whereby the judgment and decree dated 20.09.1988 passed by the trial Court was set aside. Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was decreed and it was observed that the plaintiff-appellant shall be entitled to the declaration to the effect that the order of General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur dated 13.06.1986 stopping three annual increments with cumulative effect was illegal and void. R.S.A. No. of 2435 of 1989 2 Against the decision of the First Appellate Court, the State of Punjab has come up in the Regular Second Appeal, which is now meant for disposal. Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of this appeal are that plaintiff-appellant Pritam Singh Conductor No.36 Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur has challenged the validity of the order dated 13.06.1986 passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur stopping three annual increments with cumulative effect. The main plea of the plaintiff-appellant was that proper procedure for passing the order in question was not adopted, no inquiry was held and even he was not informed about the action proposed to be taken and order in question was a non-speaking order. The suit was contested by the defendant. The State of Punjab, who controverted the pleas raised in the plaint pleaded that the order was valid one and full opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff-appellant before passing the order. The pleadings of the parties culminated in trial of the suit on the basis of the following issues: “1. Whether the impugned order passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur with holding three annual increments with cumulative effect is illegal, wrong, null and void?OPP 2. Whether a valid notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served on the defendant? OPP 3. Relief.” The plaintiff-appellant had appeared in the case while defendant had tendered the inquiry file. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. R.S.A. No. of 2435 of 1989 3 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. While arguing before me, learned State counsel has submitted that before passing the order in question full opportunity was afforded to the respondent and even there is a dispatch number appearing on the show cause notice dated 15.10.1982 which was served upon him through District Inspector and the official act shall be presumed to have been discharged properly. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is nothing on the record to establish that the show cause notice was ever served upon the respondent before passing the order in question. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The main controversy before this Court in nutshell is that whether the impugned order of stopping three annual increments with cumulative effect was illegal and void. The suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed by the trial Court but his appeal was accepted and judgment of the trial Court was reversed. It is noticed that though there is show cause notice available on the inquiry file having been issued by the Department upon the plaintiff-appellant which is dated 15.10.1982 but it nowhere proves as to whether it was infact delivered to him. The plaintiff-appellant has appeared as PW-1 and has stated that he was not served with any charge-sheet nor any inquiry was held against him. Further, he was not served any show cause notice nor he was given any opportunity to make any representation regarding the allegations against him for the proposed punishment. The statement of this witness remained unchallenged as no effective cross-examination was effected by the Department. The defendant has not examined any R.S.A. No. of 2435 of 1989 4 witness to prove that the copy of the show cause notice was ever delivered to the plaintiff-appellant before passing the impugned order in question. Rule 22 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules reads as under: “22.Service of Orders, Notices etc.-Every order, notice and other process made or issued under these rules shall be served in person on the government employee concerned or communicated to him by registered post.” This would mean that the show cause notice dated 15.10.1982 endorsed to the plaintiff-appellant was required to be personally served or shown to have been served upon him. Since the service of the show cause notice has not been proved by any evidence led by the defendant so the order passed by the Authority, on the face of it, proves to be illegal, null and void. Consequently, the findings arrived at by the First Appellate Court are affirmed. In view of the above discussion, no substantial question of law has arisen to be answered. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the First Appellate Court is upheld. November 18, 2011 ( MOHINDER PAL ) jt JUDGE R.S.A. No. of 2435 of 1989 5