52m 1 A Inthe HighCourt for the States of Punjaband Haryanaat Chandigarh RSA No880f1988 Date of decision September72011 Sunder Kumar Appellant Versus PepsuRoad TranspottCorporation and others 2espOndents Coratn Honble MrJustice Mohinder Pal Present Mr VSharma Advocate for the appellant C Mr Ranvir SChouhan DAGPunjab for the respondents 0 C0 MO14INDER PALJ I 45 This is Regular Second Appealagainstthe concurrentfindingsof I thecourts below vide which the suit of the plaintiffSurinder Kumar opellant Z hereinlfor declaration to the effect that order dated 3041 985 to the extent it reducesthe plaintiffin rank from Electricianto that of Helperand withholding the n payand allowances for the periodhe remained out of service and the order I dated251985 terminating the plaintifffrom service while workingas Electrician wereillegalnull and void withoutjurisdiction or any authority Z Plaintiff Surinder Kumar was employedas Helperby the Pepsu 00 Road TransportCorporationCorporationhereinland was Iateron promoted as Wm Electrician He faced regulardepartmental inquiryon the allegationof absence Z from duty without permissionof the Depot Managerof the respondente Om who terminated his services vide impugnedorder dated 231985 InappealDeputyGeneraI Managersubstitutedthe punishment of terminationto that of reduction to the rank to which the plaintiHwas holdingpriorto his promotion vide order dated 3041985 Both these orders have been challenged Oll the groundthat the piaintiffwas not afforded reasonable opportunity in the 4 inquiry and the same are not speakingorders and that he has been appointedby the General Managerof the Corporationand could not have been punishedby . uma 2012.05.18 16: 32 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 53 V RSA No880f1988 2 V the DepotManageror the DeputyGeneraI Manager The case of the plaintiff was contested bythe Corporationwith the avermentthat there was no flaw in the conduct of the inquiryor in passingof the impugnedorder as the DepotManagerwas the competentauthorityto punish the appellantunder the rules Pleadingsof the partiesculminating Ill framingof the following ISSUes 1 Whether the impugnedorder dated 2585 and 304 85 are illegalnull and void etc etc as allegedbythe plaintiff7OPP i r 2 Whether the suit is not maintainablein the presentform 70PD 0 3 Whether the plaintiffis estoppedfrom his own act and conduct 0 from filingthis suit 70PD 4 Whether this CouIt has got no jurisdiction to ttythis suit 7OPD 0 5 Relief The trial Court decided issue Nos23 and 4 in favour of the piaintiff Z and againstthe defendantsIowever ISsue N01 was decided againstthe plaintiffby holdingthat order dated 251 985 and 301 985 were valid and Iegalandwere rightlydecided againstthe plaintiffThe AppellateCourt once I againupheldthe judgmentpassedbythe Court below by dismissingthe appeal Z as a result of which the appellanthas come in RegularSecond Appeal which IS OO pendingfor disposalbefore this Court 7 1have heard Iearnedcounsel for the partiesand have gone through Z the recordavailable with this Court Qm The main issue for consideration before this Coun is whether the impugnedorders dated 251985 and 3041985 passedbythe DepotManager were valid and Iegalonce the appellanthas joinedthe service in pursuance to the orders passedbythe General Managerto the Corporationconcerned Learned counsel for the appellanthas submittedthat the appellant has joinedthe Corporationas Heipervide order passed by the General Managerand this authoritycontinues to be the appointingauthorityof the . uma 2012.05.18 16: 32 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 54 RSA No880f1988 3 me appellant even after the enforcement of the regulations 1981 It is submiHed that the appointingauthorityIater on can imposepunishmentand the punishment imposed bythe DepotManagerwho was subordinate to the appointingauthority was void and illegaland was requiredto be set aside On the other hand Iearned counsel for the has controvened these argumentsby submittingthat as per Pepsu Road TransportCorporation Conditions of Appointmentof Services rules which are applicableto the case of the plaintiffthe services of the appellantcould be terminatedby the DepotManagerwho was competentauthorityto appoint 1 Electricians and Fitters 0 Duringthe course of argumentsmy attention has been drawn to 0 Appendix 80f the Rules mentioned above in which the authoritycompetentto I 0 makeappointmentto the post of Electrician and Helperis DepotManager I Further it is the same officer who can imposepenaltyto these classes of Z employes and further appealIies to the DeputyGeneral Manager The entire confusionseems to have arisen as earlier General Managerwas the appointing authority for the postof EIectricianand Fitter but Iater on after cominginto force I of the new regulationsDeputyManagerwas the competentauthorityto appoint L these persons and now the appointingauthorityis DeputyManagerSince the Z orderin questionhas been passedbythe DepotManagerthe same are held to m be valid and Iegalin absence of any challengeto the rules vide which the powers have been givento the DepotManager Z For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any aHirmityand ambiguity tl in the judgmentof the trial Court or that of the AppeliateCourt No substantial questionof Iawarises in this appeal Dismissed September 72011 MOHINDER PALI nk 1 . uma 2012.05.18 16: 32 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document