Regular Second Appeal No.3431 of 1986. -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No.3431 of 1986. Date of decision:23.5.2008. The State of Punjab and another. ...Appellants. Versus Resham Singh. ...Resopndent. ... Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. C. Puri. ... Present: Mr.J.S.Sandhu, AAG Punjab. Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. ... K. C. Puri, J. Judgment. Resham Singh plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration challenging order dated 30.7.1984 vide which he was dismissed from service. Resham Singh plaintiff was working as a Conductor in the Punjab Roadways Depot, Pathankot under the control of defendant No.2 since the year 1975. He was removed from service vide order dated 30.7.1984 which has been challenged by him by filing a civil suit Regular Second Appeal No.3431 of 1986. -2- on various grounds. It is pleaded by the plaintiff that the charge-sheet issued to him was based on suspicion. The documents were not supplied to him. The Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were legally trained Prosecutors of the department,whereas he was not given any assistance of the legal practitioner in spite of his demand for the same. The enquiry was not conducted as per Punjab Civil Service Rules (Punishment & Appeal), 1970. The adverse findings against him were based on no legal evidence. The Enquiry Officer did not remain impartial during the enquiry proceedings. He was not given any opportunity to lead his defence. The reply to the charge sheet filed by him was not considered. The material witnesses have not stepped into the witness box. The incriminating facts and circumstances were not put to him. The defendants, now appellants, have resisted the claim of the plaintiff by denying his averments. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?OPD. 2. Whether the order dated 30.7.1984 is illegal, null and void? OPP. 3. Relief. Issue No.1 was not pressed before the trial Court and consequently the same was decided against the defendants. However, Regular Second Appeal No.3431 of 1986. -3- issue No.2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. In view of findings on issue No.1, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.1985. The defendants/appellants aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.1985, preferred an appeal. The said appeal was dismissed by the then District Judge, Gurdaspur vide judgment and decree dated 4.8.1986. Still feeling not satisfied with both the judgments and decrees, as referred to above, the defendants/appellants have preferred the present appeal. During the pendency of appeal, the respondent died and his legal representatives were ordered to be brought on record vide order dated 15.1.2002. Mr. Sandhu, learned AAG has submitted that the following substantial questions of law have arisen in the present appeal:- 1.Whether order of termination of the respondent/plaintiff is not valid, when he has committed embezzlement on three different occasions? 2.Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled for reinstatement when he has committed embezzlement and mis-appropriated the amount received by him from the passengers without issuing tickets to them, moreso when opportunity to lead evidence has already been provided to Regular Second Appeal No.3431 of 1986. -4- him? The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there are serious charges of embezzlement and he was found guilty of the same. So, in these circumstances, he was rightly dismissed from service. It is further submitted that the Civil Court cannot interfere in the departmental proceedings and, on that count, the judgments of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgments of both the Courts below. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions made by both sides and have gone through the record of the case. This is a Regular Second Appeal and it can be entertained only if any substantial question of law is involved. The substantial questions of law framed by the counsel for the appellants are not substantial questions of law but are questions of fact. In view of law laid down in authority reported as Santosh Hazari Versus Purushottam Tiwari (Dead) by Lrs., 2001(3) R.C.R (Civil) 243, the High Court cannot interfere on the question of fact. Both the Courts below have returned concurrent finding that the order is based upon no evidence against the plaintiff. So, that being a finding of fact cannot be interfered with in the Regular Second Appeal. Regular Second Appeal No.3431 of 1986. -5- Otherwise also, during the course of arguments, it is revealed that the plaintiff was taken in the service after passing of the decree of the Appellate Court and thereafter on 31.10.1993, he was retired on medical grounds. The plaintiff was in service of the appellants since the year 1975. Otherwise also, putting the clock back to 33 years would not be in consonance with justice. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. May 23,2008. ( K. C. Puri ) Jaggi Judge