Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 1436
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.
State of Punjab & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Lavinder Pal Singh – Respondent
R.S.A.No. 2507 of 2005
Decided On : 18-04-2023
For the Parties : Mr. Gurvinder Singh AAG, Punjab, Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Mr. Taranum Madaan
Headnote:(A) Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 - The judgment concerns a regular second appeal challenging the lower Appellate Court's decision that the departmental enquiry against the respondent was flawed and did not adhere to procedural norms. (Paras 5, 7, 12).
(B) Departmental Enquiry - The lower Appellate Court concluded that while negligence was established, embezzlement was not, and the enquiry was not conducted in compliance with required rules, justifying the reversal of punishment (Paras 5, 12).
(C) Fairness in Enquiry - The courts emphasized the necessity of a fair enquiry process, rejecting procedures that denied employees the chance to defend themselves (Paras 11, 12).
Facts of the case:
The respondent, employed as a Junior Auditor, faced a charge of embezzlement but was found only negligent after a departmental enquiry. The trial Court upheld the punishment, which was later set aside by the lower Appellate Court (Paras 3-5).
Findings of Court:
The enquiry proceedings were quashed due to procedural misconduct, thus preventing the imposition of punitive measures. The reasoning indicates systemic flaws in the enquiry (Paras 11-12).
Issues: The primary questions addressed include the legality of the enquiry and the appropriateness of the punishment given the lack of evidence on charges of embezzlement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that defective enquiry processes which did not allow for proper defence amounted to a violation of principles of fairness, rendering the punishment arbitrary (Paras 12).
Result: The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the lower Appellate Court was affirmed with directions for benefits to be extended to the respondent's heirs (Paras 14-15).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on respondent's employment and disciplinary action. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. trial court's dismissal based on procedural aspects. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments from both sides regarding procedural fairness. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's analysis on the validity of inquiry procedures. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. final judgment acknowledging the death of the respondent. (Para 13 , 14) |
Judgment
Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi, J.
Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the State challenging the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 02.04.2005 by which, the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 06.01.2001 has been set aside and the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff has been allowed.
2. Certain facts needs to be mentioned for the correct appreciation of the controversy in question.
3. The respondent-plaintiff was appointed as Junior Auditor on 14.10.1980. While working on the said post, he was suspended along with the others w.e.f. 28.04.1994 and a charge-sheet was served upon him. Along with the respondent-plaintiff, one Arjan Singh, Raj Dulari and Ramji Das Sharma were also proceeded against in departmental proceedings on the same allegations of embezzlement. Enquiry Officer was appointed to find out the truth in the allegations, negligence in performance of duties was proved but the embezzlement of money was not proved. The enquiry report was given to all the employees who were being proceeded against and ultimately on 15.05.1997, punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect was passed and the period of suspension was ordered to be treated as a leave of kind due. It may be noticed that the respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit challenging the said order of punishment whereas, the other employees, who were also proceeded against in the joint enquiry namely Arjan Singh, Raj Dulari and Ramji Das Sharma challenged similar order of punishment by filing CWP No.15807 of 1998, CWP No.16004 of 1998 and CWP No.16005 of 1998 respectively.
4. Keeping in view the evidence which came on record, the trial Court interpreted the same and held that as the enquiry was held against the respondent-plaintiff qua the allegations in a manner required under the rules and the Civil Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Department, hence, no relief qua the punishment imposed can be granted in the favour of the respondent-plaintiff and the said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 06.01.2001.
5. Feeling aggrieved against the said decision, the respondent-plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court and the said appeal came to be decided on 02.04.2005 wherein, the lower Appellate Court held that the allegation of embezzlement were not proved but only the allegations of negligence in performance of duties was proved by the enquiry officer and even the said enquiry was not conducted in a manner envisaged under the Rules, the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 06.01.2001 was set aside and the order of punishment imposing the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effective was set aside and the consequential benefits were allowed but with liberty to the Department to hold a fresh enquiry into the allegations.
6. The said judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court dated 02.04.2005 is under challenge in the present Regular Second Appeal.
7. It may be noticed here that the other employees, who were also proceeded against along with the respondent-plaintiff and were also punished along with the respondent-plaintiff had filed writ petition before this Court challenging the imposition of the punishment and succeeded in their writ petition as Coordinate Bench of this Court by a common decision dated 25.05.2016 held that the enquiry proceedings were not held in a manner prescribed under the Rules and the punishment imposed upon them was set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants-State submits that no justifiable reason has been given by the lowe
