Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1777
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Augustine George Masih, J.
Devi Lal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
RSA No. 1129 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 11-01-2019
Ms. Shashi Himshika, Advocate for Mr. Rajeev Anand, Advocate, for the Appellant
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings and the requirement for evidence to support claims of misconduct.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Appeal against Judgment and Decree - 1934 Rules - Rule 16.38 - Judicial Review - Misconduct - Enquiry Report - District Magistrate Approval - Double Punishment
Fact of the Case:
The appeal sought condonation of a 32-day delay in re-filing the appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge. The appellant's suit for declaration was dismissed, and the appeal against it was also dismissed by the District Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the evidence presented by the appellant was duly countered by the respondent, and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were sustainable. The Court also held that the approval of the District Magistrate was not required in the present case, and the appellant had not been punished twice for the misconduct.
Issues: The issues included non-consideration of the appellant's stand during the departmental proceedings, the requirement of District Magistrate approval, and the alleged double punishment of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the limited scope of judicial review in departmental proceedings, the applicability of Rule 16.38 of the 1934 Rules, and the absence of evidence to support the appellant's claims.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments.
JUDGMENT
Augustine George Masih , J. (Oral) - CM-2782-C-2018
Prayer in this application is for condonation of delay of 32 days in re-filing the appeal.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the Clerk of the counsel, the same is allowed.
Delay of 32 days in re-filing the appeal stands condoned.
RSA-1129-2018
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad, dated 25.02.2016, whereby, suit for declaration preferred by the appellant - plaintiff to the effect that the order dated 31.01.1999 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hisar, imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with permanent effect be set aside being illegal and arbitrary with a further prayer for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to release all the benefits which were withheld in pursuance to the impugned order along with interest, was dismissed, appeal against which preferred by the appellant - plaintiff was also dismissed by the District Judge, Fatehabad, vide judgment dated 11.01.2017.
2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Courts below have failed to appreciate that the evidence which has been led by the respondent -Department has been duly countered by the appellant - plaintiff by producing his evidence, which has not been properly appreciated and the finding, therefore, recorded by the Enquiry Officer in its enquiry report (Ex.P-6) is not sustainable. Further contention has been raised that no approval of the District Magistrate has been obtained as required under Rule 16.38 of the Punjab Police Services Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as 1934 Rules'). It has further been asserted that the order dated 25.04.1999 which has been passed by the respondents, whereby, the earned leave and half pay leave have been deducted during his suspension period is illegal. She, therefore, submits that the impugned order dated 31.01.1999 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Hisar, whereby, two increments with permanent effect have been ordered as punishment, could not sustain. The Courts below have not appreciated the legal position and therefore, the said judgments cannot sustain.
3. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India & another 2012 (3) SCC 178 to contend that where the misconduct attributed to the delinquent employee, the stand of the employee has to be taken into consideration. She, thus, contends that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the suit as filed by the appellant - plaintiff deserves to be decreed.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and with her assistance, have gone through the impugned judgments.
5. The first contention which has been raised by the counsel for the appellant relates to non-consideration rather not properly considering the stand of the appellant as taken by him during the departmental proceedings. The said aspect has been rightly considered and while considering the scope of the judicial review in the departmental proceedings of the Civil Court, the same has been dealt with in para 12 of the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court, which reads as follows:-
"12. The scope of judicial review of the departmental proceedings is limited and Civil Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings of disciplinary authority. Civil Court has got jurisdiction to find out regularity of proceedings of enquiry and question as to whether there is violation of principles of natural justice. It is also open to the Civil Court to go into the question as to jurisdiction of inquiring authority and disciplinary authority either to hold disciplinary proceedings or to impose penalty. It also can go into a question whether the penalty imposed is proportionate to the misconduct proved. However civil Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence adduced before t
