JUDGMENT

Mr. Namit Kumar, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.03.1991, passed by the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Ferozepur, whereby suit for declaration filed by the respondent-plaintiff was decreed as well as against the judgment and decree dated 18.05.1993, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby appeal preferred by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 04.03.1991, has been dismissed.

2. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the civil suit. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that order dated 15.04.1985, vide which he was reduced to time scale by five increments by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur, is illegal, null and void and not binding on him. It was pleaded that plaintiff was employed as Conductor in the Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur Depot and he is governed by Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970.

3. Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed written statement denying the allegations and claim of the plaintiff. It was stated that punishment was awarded to the plaintiff after holding enquiry according to rules and the impugned order is legal and valid.

4. From the pleadings of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: -

1. Whether the impugned order is illegal and is liable to be set aside? OPP

2. Whether a valid notice under section 80 CPC was served upon the defendant by the plaintiff before filing the present suit? If not its effect? OPP

3. Relief.

5. After hearing arguments and appreciating evidence on record, trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 04.03.1991.

6. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant-State preferred an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which has been dismissed, vide judgment and decree dated 18.05.1993. Hence this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are erroneous and perverse as they are against the facts on record and the rules. He further contended that impugned order was passed after following the due procedure and rules governing the service of the respondent. He further contended that if there was any technical error or procedural irregularity in the impugned order, the matter should have been remanded back to the authorities, which has not been done by Courts below. He contended that the judgments/decrees of Courts below are based on surmises and conjectures, therefore, same are liable to be set aside and suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that impugned order was passed in violation of Rules 8.11 and 4.12 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. He contended that judgments of the Courts below are perfectly valid and legal, therefore, same do not require any interference by this Court and present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. Both the Courts below decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that there was violation of Rules 8.11 and 4.12 of the 1970 Rules. It was observed by the Courts below that plaintiff-respondent did not plead guilty, therefore, under Rule 8.11 of the Rules, it was mandatory on the part of the enquiry officer to pass an order for producing evidence by the prosecution and adjourn the case at least for 30 days and the enquiry officer did not pass any such order and it has not been specified whether the plaintiff will earn future increment or not, thus, the impugned order was bad under Rule 4.12 of the 1970 Rules.

11. Rule 8.11 of the Rules reads as under: -

"The inquiring authority shall if the Government employee fails to appear within the specified time or refuses or omits to plead, require the Officer to