R.S.A. No. 1985 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1985 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.3.2011 Narinder Kaur and others ......Appellants Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present : Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate, for the appellants. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Satnam Singh had filed a suit for declaration challenging the order dated 4.10.2004, whereby his services were terminated, and order dated 30.12.2005, passed in appeal, whereby the order dated 4.10.2004 was upheld. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he had joined the services of Punjab Roadways in the year 1982. Some false reports were made against the plaintiff. A charge sheet dated 15.1.2005 was served on the plaintiff on the basis of the said false reports. Plaintiff sent his reply to the charge sheet. However, an Inquiry Officer was appointed by the Appointing Authority. During the Inquiry proceedings, plaintiff was not afforded full opportunity to present his case. The Inquiry Officer conducted R.S.A. No. 1985 of 2010 (O&M) 2 the inquiry in complete violation of the relevant rules. Plaintiff was supplied with the copy of the inquiry report and he submitted his reply to the show cause notice. However, without considering the reply, filed by the plaintiff to the show cause notice, the impugned order of punishment was passed. Appeal, filed by the plaintiff against the said order, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. Defendants, in their written statement, admitted the fact that the plaintiff was working as a conductor with them. It was averred that on the basis of allegations levelled against the plaintiff, departmental inquiry was conducted against him in accordance with rules. Full opportunity was granted to the plaintiff to present his case during inquiry proceedings. The impugned orders had been validly passed. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for ? OPP. 3. Whether no legal and valid notice was served upon the defendants ? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD. 5. Relief.” Vide judgment and decree dated 4.5.2009 Civil Judge, Junior Division, Amritsar dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. The said judgment and decree were upheld in appeal, filed by the legal representatives of the R.S.A. No. 1985 of 2010 (O&M) 3 plaintiff, vide judgment and decree dated 14.12.2009 by Additional District Judge, Amritsar. Hence, the present appeal by the legal representatives of the plaintiff. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal. The scope of judicial review regarding interference with punishment order is very limited. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is only to see the method/manner of awarding punishment. The Court is only concerned with the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority. If the procedure adopted by the Punishing Authority is according to rules and natural justice, then no interference with the punishment order is called for. The Civil Court cannot go into the merits of the case. In case, the finding of the Inquiry Officer is based on some evidence, then the Court cannot reappreicate the evidence or weigh the same like the Appellate Authority. So long as there is some evidence in support of the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. Some defect in the inquiry has to be pointed out before the Civil Court can interfere with the punishment order. Further more, if defect is pointed out then the delinquent employee has to show as to what prejudice has been caused to him on account of the said defect. It has been held in Bank of India and another vs. Degala Suryanarayana, J.T. 1999 (4) Supreme Court 489 that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the departmental proceedings. The Court exercising jurisdiction of judicial review is not to interfere with the finding of the fact arrived at in a departmental inquiry excepting in a case of mala R.S.A. No. 1985 of 2010 (O&M) 4 fide or perversity. The Court cannot embark upon reappreciating the evidence or weigh the same like an Appellate Authority. The finding recorded by the disciplinary authority was immune from interference within the limited scope of power of judicial review applicable to the Court. In the present case, charge sheet was duly served on the plaintiff. Plaintiff submitted his reply to the charge sheet. Plaintiff participated in the inquiry proceedings. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff alongwith copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer and the punishment order was passed. Thus, the punishment order in the present case was passed after a departmental inquiry was held against the plaintiff. Both the Courts below after appreciating the evidence led on record had given a finding of fact that the inquiry had been conducted against the plaintiff in accordance with law and the punishment order had been passed after adopting proper procedure. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal which would warrant interference by this Court. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 7, 2011 Anand