IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2758 of 1988 Date of decision: 30th November, 2010 State of Haryana and another … Appellants Versus Sadhu Ram … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Kirti Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants-State. Mr. G.S. Bawa, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been filed by the State of Haryana through Collector Sirsa, District Sirsa and the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Sirsa. Plaintiff-respondent Sadhu Ram was employed as a driver in Haryana Roadways, Sirsa Depot, Sirsa. The defendant-appellant No.2 passed an order on 23rd November, 1982 and ordered stoppage of one annual increment to the plaintiff-respondent with cumulative effect. Aggrieved against the same, plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for declaration, praying that the order dated 23rd November, 1982 be set aside and the defendant-appellant be directed to release the annual increment along with payment of arrears. In the suit, it was pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent that on 16th November, 1979, he was on duty as a driver of bus No.5394 bound for Amritsar from Hisar. A chargesheet was served upon the plaintiff- respondent that he had not stopped the bus at the bus-stops of Odhan, Chormar and had not lifted the passengers from there. It was further stated Regular Second Appeal No.2758 of 1988 therein that he had also not paid any heed to the whistles blown by Joginder Singh Inspector. The plaintiff-respondent furnished reply to the chargesheet, wherein he stated that he was carrying 80 passengers in the bus. The bus was already overloaded and it was running late and since it was a long-route bus, he had not stopped the same on those destinations. Prahlad Singh, conductor of the bus, appeared and had not supported the case of the appellant. The trial Court held that since the bus was already overloaded, therefore, the question of carrying more passengers did not arise and the same was also against the safety of the passengers. Aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court, State of Haryana had filed an appeal. The lower appellate Court held that the finding of fact returned by the trial Court has not been disputed by the appellant. It further affirmed the finding given by the trial Court that the sitting capacity of the bus was 56 and there were already 80 passengers, therefore, the driver was justified in not stopping the bus at various bus-stops, as no more passengers could be lifted. The appellate Court below further held that the order imposing punishment was a mechanical and non-speaking order. Present appeal pertains to the year 1982. About 28 years have elapsed. Counsel for the State is not able to acquaint this Court as to whether the employee has retired or not. No substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 30, 2010 rps 2