Regular Second Appeal No. 1518 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1518 of 2009. Date of Decision: 17.4.2009 *** Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala .. Appellant VS. Darshan Singh & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Through the instant regular second appeal, the defendant- appellant is challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.2.2009 passed by the learned First Appellate Court. The suit of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 challenging his termination order dated 19.8.1996 as also the order of dismissal of his appeal by the competent authority dated 12.8.1999 was dismissed by the learned trial court by observing that same had been validly passed after having adhered to the principles of natural justice and rules and regulations governing the service conditions of the plaintiff, but at the same time failed to take into consideration the admission of defendants' own witness i.e. DW1 Surinderjit Singh, who categorically made admission that show cause notice and enquiry report was not served upon the plaintiff personally. Presumption of service of show cause notice, as drawn by the learned trial court has been totally negated by the learned First Appellate Court below while relying upon the judicial pronouncements to the effect that where disciplinary proceedings are intended to be initiated by issuing a charge- sheet, its actual service is essential on the delinquent and the theory of communication cannot be invoked. Thus, it was rightly observed that the Regular Second Appeal No. 1518 of 2009 2 principles of natural justice have not been complied with while passing the impugned order of termination rendering the entire proceedings vitiated and consequently the order of termination as also the appeal were accordingly set aside by giving liberty to the appellant to hold the enquiry afresh right from the stage illegality had been committed. It cannot be said that the approach of the learned appellate Court below is erroneous, perverse or based on no evidence. Therefore, there is no question of law raised in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 17,2009 Jiten