R.S.A. No. 3783 of 2003 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 3783 of 2003 Date of Decision: 16.3.2009 Krishan Sangruri ...Appellant. Versus Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Parveen Kumar Garg, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Ms. Ritam Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.3 & 4. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. Having lost before the courts below, the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of present regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 5.5.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur, affirming that of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur dated 2.12.2002, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for declaration to the effect that the order dated 3.2.1997 passed by Appellate Committee vide which three increments with cumulative effect were stopped and remuneration from the date of dismissal from service till reinstatement was refused, was illegal, null and void, was dismissed. Sans unessentials, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff R.S.A. No. 3783 of 2003 -2- joined as Sub Inspector in 1974 in the PUNSUP and was promoted as Inspector in 1976 and then as Field Officer in 1987. He was president of the Union of Employees and remained posted at Malerkotla since 3.11.1982. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 18/22.9.1994 and was served with a charge-sheet to which, the plaintiff submitted his detailed reply. Shri K.C. Maini, IAS (Retd) was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The plaintiff was supplied a copy of the enquiry report vide letter dated 10.4.1995 against which he submitted a detailed representation. It was further pleaded that defendant No.3 on the basis of the enquiry report, dismissed the services of the plaintiff vide order dated 25.5.1995. Against the said order, the plaintiff filed Civil Writ Petition No. 916 of 1995 which was dismissed by this Court with the observation that the plaintiff may avail the alternative remedy of appeal. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the appellate committee and the appellate committee vide order dated 3.2.1997 accepted the appeal and the punishment of dismissal from service was reduced to that of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect besides withholding of remuneration from the date of his dismissal from service till reinstatement. Consequently, the plaintiff was reinstated. According to the plaintiff, the said order dated 3.2.1997 was illegal, null and void. To controvert the suit of the plaintiff, the defendants filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the enquiry was conducted as per rules and regulations governing the service conditions of the plaintiff and the plaintiff was rightly dismissed from service. Personal hearing was given to the plaintiff and R.S.A. No. 3783 of 2003 -3- during personal hearing, he stated that the recovery of the amount had been made from M/s Gopal Rice Mills. It was further pleaded that the order passed by the appellate authority was speaking, constitutional and valid one. The other averments made in the plaint were denied and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the order dated 3.2.1997 is illegal, void, against jurisdiction and liable to be set aside? OPP 2. Whether this court has got no jurisdiction to try the case? OPD 3. Whether plaint is not properly verified. If so, its effect? OPD 4. Relief.” The trial court on appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties decided issue No.1 against the plaintiff holding that the order dated 3.2.1997 was legal and valid. Issue No.2 was decided against the defendants holding that the courts at Sangrur had territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the suit. Issue No.3 was decided against the defendants. Accordingly, the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 2.12.2002 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff took the matter in appeal and the lower appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 5.5.2003 affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgments with their assistance. R.S.A. No. 3783 of 2003 -4- The trial court while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff has observed as under:- “Counsel for plaintiff argued that in the present case also when dismissal order of plaintiff is set aside, plaintiff is entitled to back wages and the same cannot be withheld from the plaintiff, but I find no weight in the argument of plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is on different footing as in the present case, plaintiff is not exonerated of the charges framed against him but penalty imposed upon him by punishing authority of dismissal from service was reduced to that of stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and withholding of remuneration from the date of dismissal till the reinstatement. So in the present case, employee was held guilty and the disciplinary proceedings were not decided in favour of the employee, rather the punishment was reduced from dismissal to stoppage of 3 annual increments and withholding of back wages. So the case of plaintiff is at different footing then in the authorities cited by the counsel for plaintiff. In the present case the order passed by Appellate Authority is a composite order vide which the penalty imposed upon plaintiff regarding dismissal of his service was reduced to that of stoppage of 3 annual increments with cumulative R.S.A. No. 3783 of 2003 -5- effect and withholding remuneration during dismissal period and that order cannot be severed and court cannot substitute its own order in place of order passed by Appellate Authority as Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held in Dr. Tarun K. Banerjeet Versus State of West Bengal and others 1978 (1) SLR, 335, where the order was passed by the Govt. Appointing Dr. Halder as Professor and Head of the department for the purpose of his appointment of Principal, it was held that “if his appointment as Principal cannot be upheld the other two appointments cannot also be supported on the grounds mentioned as under:- “The order in question is a single composite order and the Court cannot sever the same and substitute its own order in place of the Government order in the facts and circumstances of the case.” In the present case also the order of Appellate Authority is a composite order that cannot be severed if it is to be set aside, it is to be set aside as a whole and if it is to be upheld it is to be upheld as a whole and plaintiff is alleging that the portion of the order where his dismissal order was set aside should be upheld and the remaining portion where his back wages were withheld should be set aside. This cannot be done, so the order dated 3.2.1997 is R.S.A. No. 3783 of 2003 -6- perfectly legal and valid.” The aforesaid findings were affirmed by the lower appellate court in appeal. No illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below. No misreading of any evidence by the courts below has been shown by the learned counsel for the appellant warranting interference by this Court in the regular second appeal. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. March 16, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE