The court upheld the validity of the departmental inquiry, emphasizing adherence to procedural rules and the principle that courts should not interfere with factual findings unless they are perverse.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Namit Kumar, J.

This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.08.1993 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, whereby appeal filed by the respondent-State has been accepted and suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant stands dismissed.

2. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the civil suit. Briefly stated, Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 01.09.1987, passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga, by virtue of which his three annual increments with cumulative effect were stopped was illegal, ultra vires, wrong, null and void. It was submitted in the plaint that plaintiff is employed as a conductor in the Department of Transport, Punjab Roadways, Moga and he is a civil servant and as such he is entitled to protection under Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1970 and Article 311 of the Constitution of India. The plaintiff was placed under suspension by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Moga and a charge-sheet was served upon him. The plaintiff filed reply to the charge-sheet, in which he denied all the allegations levelled against him. It was pleaded that the charge sheet was vague, indefinite and did not contain sufficient material as required under the law and rules and it presupposed the guilt of the plaintiff without any formal proof. The department has not given the entire list of witnesses, which were to be examined before the Enquiry Officer, along with the charge sheet and as such there is violation of Rule 8 Sub clause 4 of P.C.S. (P&A) Rules, 1970. It was further stated that the plaintiff was not given an opportunity to have the assistance of a co-worker as defence helper, as he was not conversant with the procedure of enquiry. The enquiry officer was neither a punishing authority nor he was delegated with powers to hold the enquiry and the enquiry was without jurisdiction. The Enquiry Officer has not conducted the enquiry in accordance with the PCS (P&A) Rules, 1970. The Enquiry Officer has not conducted the enquiry himself. It was further stated that the copy of complaint on the basis of which the plaintiff was charge-sheeted was not supplied to the plaintiff at any stage and this caused prejudice to the plaintiff. That no interim order as required under Rule 8 Sub-clause 11 of the PCS (P&A) Rules, 1970, was passed by the Enquiry Officer and non-passing of this order, vitiates the entire enquiry proceedings as the valuable rights of the delinquent official for the inspection of documents and summoning of documents, if any, for the purposes of effective cross-examination of prosecution witnesses had been taken away. It was further submitted that show cause notice was not served upon the plaintiff before passing the impugned order nor the copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer was supplied to the plaintiff and without the service of show cause notice and the copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the increments of the plaintiff could not be stopped with cumulative effect and as such the order is illegal and against rules. The plaintiff sent a notice under section 80 CPC to the defendant, under registered/A.D. cover which was duly served, but to no effect.

3. Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction, the suit is time barred and not maintainable in the present form. It was stated on merit that the charge sheet is correct, legal, specific and detailed and it contained sufficient material as per rules. The charge sheet was drawn according to rules and list of witnesses and documents were supplied to the plaintiff along with the charge sheet. The plaintiff has refused the offer of the Enquiry Officer regarding assistance of co-worker in the enquiry proceedings and the Enquiry Officer was duly appointed to conduct the enquiry against the plaintiff and the enqu