1 RSA No. 3757 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- R. S. A. No. 3757 of 2008 Date of decision: 30.4.2009 Rajinder Singh --- Appellant Versus State of Punjab and another --- Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- PRESENT: Mr. Arun Abrol, Advocate for the appellant. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This is plaintiff’s second appeal. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff while being in the employment of the Punjab Roadways, Pathankot as Conductor was punished by the punishing authority i.e. the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Pathankot, for various lapses committed from time to time. He filed a suit for declaration challenging the following orders of punishment imposed on him: i) Order dated 8.9.1995 whereby one increment without cumulative effect was stopped; 2 RSA No. 3757 of 2008 ii) Order dated 23.9.1996 whereby one increment with cumulative effect was stopped; iii) Order dated 8.1.1997 whereby two increments without cumulative effect were stopped and iv) Order dated 22.10.1997 whereby three increments with cumulative effect were stopped v) Order dated 1.12.1997 whereby his salary for the suspension period ordered vide order dated 22.10.1997 was forfeited. The orders mentioned at (i) and (iii) above whereby minor penalty of stoppage of increments without cumulative effect was imposed, were challenged, inter alia, on the grounds that no enquiry had been conducted against the plaintiff nor was any order passed dispensing with the enquiry; the punishing authority never called for the explanation of the plaintiff before issuing the show cause notice proposing to impose penalty; the procedure to impose minor penalty had not been followed and the orders of punishment were non-speaking as the defence of the plaintiff had not been considered. Orders dated 23.9.1996 and 22.10.1997 mentioned at (ii) and (iv) above, were impugned on the grounds that the same amounted to major penalty and had been passed in violation of the Service Rules; copies of the documents on the basis of which charge-sheets had been drawn were never supplied to the plaintiff nor were the same shown to the plaintiff during the course of the enquiry proceedings. As regards the order at 3 RSA No. 3757 of 2008 (v), it was pleaded that the same was totally unjustified as the plaintiff had not committed any misconduct and, thus, the order of forfeiture of salary for the suspension period was illegal and uncalled for. Over and above the aforesaid, it was further pleaded that no opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff to put forward his defence and the principles of natural justice were not observed before passing the orders imposing penalty on the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendants, it was pleaded in the written statement that the punishments were imposed on the plaintiff after his guilt was proved in the enquiries conducted against him and the said orders were passed strictly in accordance with the Service Rules; there was no violation of the principles of natural justice while conducting enquiries or imposing penalties on the plaintiff. Various instances were referred to in the written statement by the defendants to show that the plaintiff committed frauds, inasmuch as he would not issue tickets to passengers and on being detected by the checking staff of the Roadways Department, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and appropriate penalties in consonance with the severity of the misconduct were imposed on him. It was vehemently pleaded that the plaintiff was afforded full opportunity to defend himself in the proceedings initiated against him for taking action for the misconduct and the lapses committed by him. The trial court on analysis of the evidence on record came to record a firm finding that there was no illegality in the passing of the 4 RSA No. 3757 of 2008 orders of punishment. As regards punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, imposed vide order dated 23.9.1996, the plaintiff had himself admitted having received charge sheet; furnishing reply thereto by him; the factum of an enquiry officer having been appointed; receiving the show cause notice and filing reply to the said notice by him. The trial court further noticed that the plaintiff had taken a plea that he had not been afforded any opportunity to lead evidence in his defence, but a perusal of the enquiry file revealed that such opportunity was given to the plaintiff, but he had declined to lead any evidence in his defence. No fault was found with any of the orders impugned by the plaintiff in the suit and more particularly, even the order dated 1.12.1997 ordering forfeiture of salary for the suspension period was also held to be free from any legal error. The trial court, thus, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.2001. The first appellate court, however, on the appeal preferred by the plaintiff concurred with the findings of the trial court with regard to all but one punishment orders. Examining the legality of the order dated 23.9.1996, it was noticed that said order was not called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. The said order was, thus, declared null and void and consequently, while reversing the findings of the trial court in that behalf, suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed by the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 13.6.2008 in respect of the said order of punishment. 5 RSA No. 3757 of 2008 I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have gone through the record with his assistance. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that on the basis of the evidence on record, the findings as recorded by the courts below could not have been arrived at and the same were wrong and illegal. The counsel further submitted that this Court should record an independent finding after re-appreciating the evidence. The contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for the reason that in order to differ with the concurrent findings of the courts below, that re-appreciation of the evidence is not permissible in view of the impediment contained in the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In any case, the findings recorded by the courts below are based on correct appreciation of the oral as well as the documentary evidence and also on the sound reasoning. No illegality or perversity could be shown by the counsel in the said findings so as to persuade this Court to interfere therewith in second appeal. No substantial question of law arises nor has any been pointed out by the counsel, for consideration of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) April 30, 2009 JUDGE *RKMALIK* 6 RSA No. 3757 of 2008