IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3087 of 2006 Date of Decision: 3.11.2008 Kashmiri Lal vs. State of Haryana & others Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla. Present: Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Rajive Bhalla, J, (Oral) The appellant challenges the judgments and decrees passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, and District Judge, Kaithal, dated 17th September, 2005 and 13th June, 2006, dismissing his suit and the appeal, respectively. The appellant, while working as a Junior Engineer, was assigned the job of repairing/lining a water course. A complaint came to be filed by the share holders whose lands were irrigated that as the repairs were of an indifferent quality, the water course was damaged. An enquiry ensued pursuant whereto a punishment of recovery of Rs.8545/- was imposed. The appellant filed a suit challenging the order of punishment. The learned trial court dismissed the suit by holding that the order of punishment did not suffer from any infirmity in the procedure adopted, in the consideration of the appellant's defence and in the punishment imposed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit, the appellant filed an appeal. The District Judge, Kaithal, vide judgment and decree dated 13th June, 2006 dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellant places reliance upon Ex.P-9 to submit that the XEN, MITC Sirsa, submitted a report exonerating the appellant. A similar report Ex.P-10 was submitted by the Superintending Engineer. As a result, the punishing authority should have accepted their reports and exonerated the appellant. It is submitted that apart from the above documents, there was no other material available with RSA No.3087 of 2006 -2- the punishing authority to form an opinion that the appellant was responsible for the damage caused to the water course. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the punishing authority considered the enquiry report, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the water course was not constructed as per the sanctioned plan as the level of the water course was defective. It is submitted that the punishing authority also considered the opinions of the XEN and the Superintending Engineer, Ex.P- 9 and P-10 and rightly arrived at a conclusion that the appellant was at fault. It is further submitted that as the departmental proceedings do not suffer from any error of procedure the appeal be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. The appellant was admittedly working as Junior Engineer and was entrusted with the work of lining of the water course. It is not denied that soon after the repair/lining, the water course was damaged. An enquiry into this unwarranted damage led to the appellant's indictment and imposition of a penalty of recovery of Rs.8548/-. The repair/lining of the water course was inadequate as the level was defective leading to damage to the water course. Both the trial court as well as the first appellate court have dismissed the suit and appeal by holding that there is no infirmity in the departmental proceedings, the procedure adopted or the punishment imposed. As no question of law much-less a substantial question of law arises for consideration, I do not find any reason to interfere with the concurrent findings returned by the courts below. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 3.11.2008 (Rajive Bhalla) sk Judge