RSA No.3517 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 3517 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: April 07, 2011 State of Punjab through Collector and others ......Appellants Versus Balwinder Kaur .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Satish Bhanot, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the appellant Mr.Anupam Bhardwaj,Advocate for the respondent **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent and mandatory injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that she was working as a Staff Nurse with the Health Department since 30.4.1993. There was no complaint against the plaintiff qua her work and conduct. On a frivolous complaint lodged by Reena Sharma, wife of Sushil Kumar, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the plaintiff. Plaintiff apprehending her dismissal from services filed a civil suit seeking mandatory injunction. However, impugned order dated 20.01.2009 was passed by the defendants whereby she was dismissed from RSA No.3517 of 2010 (O&M) 2 services. Defendants, in their written statement, averred that the suit had become infructuous as the inquiry proceedings had been completed against the plaintiff on 12.12.2008 and she was dismissed by the competent authority. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the order No.E-6(4)-Punjab-2009/260-61 dated 20.1.2009 is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside as alleged?OPP 2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for?OPP 4.Whether the suit has become infructuous as alleged, if so its effect?OPD 5.Whether the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands?OPD 6.Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit?OPD 7.Relief” The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 2.6.2009 and set aside impugned order dated 20.1.2009 and the defendants were directed to allow the plaintiff to join her duties. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree,defendants preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated RSA No.3517 of 2010 (O&M) 3 10.3.2010. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. The allegations against the plaintiff was that she had performed marriage with Sushil Kumar, Clerk, who was already a married man. There was no allegation against the plaintiff that she had inducted Sushil Kumar to perform marriage with her during the subsistence of his marriage. Both the Courts below, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties on record, held that the impugned order was illegal and arbitrary. In a previous complaint filed against Sushil Kumar, an inquiry was conducted by the District Family Welfare Officer, Civil Surgeon Amritsar. Reena Sharma, wife of Sushil Kumar appeared in the said inquiry and stated that she was wife of Sushil Kumar and her husband Sushil Kumar had not performed a second marriage. The complaint moved by Reena Sharma was found to be false. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court rightly held that in such a situation, a second inquiry on the same set of fact was not competent. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( SABINA ) JUDGE April 07, 2011 arya