In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

R.S.A. No. 1840 of 1987

Date of Decision: November 27, 2009

The General Manager, Nigam Transport, Municipal Corporation,

Amritsar and another

…Appellants

Versus

Kartar Singh

…Respondent

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR

Present:

Mr. T.S. Gujral, Advocate,

for the appellants.

None for the respondent.

1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in

the Digest?

M.M. KUMAR, J.

This appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, ‘the Code’) challenges concurrent

findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that the

order Nos. 478-83/TA/AMI, dated 3.9.1980; 472-70/TA/AMI, dated

3.9.1980 and 968-69/AMI, dated 21.10.1981 (mentioned at Sr. Nos.

(i), (ii) and (iv) of the head note of the plaint), stopping one annual

grade increment each with cumulative effect of the plaintiff-

respondent, are illegal and set aside. The suit of the plaintiff-

RSA No. 1840 of 1987

respondent qua said orders has been decreed whereas the validity of

order No. 189-94/AMI, dated 26.2.1981, inflicting punishment of

stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, has been

upheld.

2.

Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the

instant appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent was working as

conductor in the Punjab Roadways, Amritsar. His services were

transferred to the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, w.e.f. 1.1.1980

after constitution of the defendant-appellant Nagar Nigam Transport.

The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit alleging that defendant-Appellant

No. 1 has passed the aforementioned orders imposing major

punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect without

following the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules,

1970 (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) concerning the major penalties. It has

been asserted that neither any enquiry was conducted nor any proper

opportunity was given to him before passing the impugned orders.

3.

The defendant-appellants contested the suit and took the

stand that no inquiry etc. was required to be conducted in the matter

because the punishment of stoppage of increments with cumulative is

a minor penalty and the action taken against the plaintiff-defendant

was in accordance with the Rules. They also raised an objection that

notice under Section 396 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act

was not served before institution of the suit. It was also urged that

the suit was barred by time and not maintainable. The trial Court

framed the following issues:-

2

RSA No. 1840 of 1987

“1.

Whether the orders Nos. 478 dated 3.9.1980 is

illegal, void etc. as alleged in the plaint? OPP.

2.

Whether the orders No. 472 dated 3.9.1980 is

illegal, void etc. as alleged in the plaint? OPP.

3.

Whether the orders Nos. 189 of 26.2.1981 is

illegal, void etc. as mentioned in the plaint? OPP.

4.

Whether the orders Nos. 968 of 21.10.1981 is

illegal, void etc. as mentioned in the plaint? OPP.

5.

Whether the suit as framed is not maintainable?

OPD.

6.

Whether the suit is barred by time with regards to

the orders dated 3.9.1980? OPD.

7.

Whether a notice u/s 396 of the Punjab Municipal

Corporation Act was necessary? OPD.

8.

Relief.”

4.

With regard to Issues Nos. 1, 2 and 4, the trial Court

came to the conclusion that the punishments awarded to the plaintiff-

respondent are major punishment and no proper procedure has been

followed by the defendants. Accordingly, the trial Court set aside the

orders detailed in the aforementioned issues. In so far as order No.

189-194, dated 26.2.1981 (Ex. PW2/8), covered under Issue No. 3,

the trial Court found that one increment of the plaintiff without future

effect was stopped, whereas the plaintiff-respondent in the head note

of the plaint has claimed the same to be ‘one increment stopped with

cumulative effect’. The trial Court has further observ