IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 11.02.2026 Makhtool Singh ......Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: - Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab.

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of present Regular Second Appeal appellant- plaintiff has assailed the judgment and decree dated 10.11.1990, passed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Amritsar, whereby suit of the appellant for declaration was dismissed as well as the judgment and decree dated 18.08.1992, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, whereby appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, has been dismissed.

2. Parties to the lis are being referred as per their status before the trial Court. The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that he was employed as a Conductor in the Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-I. A false report was made by checking staff against the plaintiff for some ulterior motive. He was placed under suspension. Thereafter, a charge sheet was served upon him to which he replied. After considering the reply of the plaintiff, a departmental inquiry was held against the plaintiff. He was awarded the punishment of removal from service vide order dated 30.11.1983. Plaintiff filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager, who remanded the case to the Inquiry Officer vide order dated 24.03.1986. Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was held against the plaintiff and vide order dated 20.06.1988, penalty of stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 20.06.1988 is illegal, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, against the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1970, cryptic and not binding on the plaintiff.

3. Upon being served, defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein it was stated that the impugned order was validly passed after complying with the relevant rules and regulations of the department for the misconduct on the part of the plaintiff. It was also pleaded that the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, was necessary party to decide the controversy between the parties and the suit was bad for mis-joinder of parties. It was also stated that no valid notice was given to the defendants before filing the present suit. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court vide order dated 27.10.1989: -

“1. Whether the impugned order dated 20.6.88 passed by defendant no.2 is illegal, void and against the principles of natural justice and service rules applicable to the plaintiff? OPP

2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and consequential relief prayed for? OPP

3. Relief.

4. The trial Court after appreciating evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the suit, vide judgment and decree dated 10.11.1990.

5. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed first appeal before the First Appellate Court, which too was dismissed, vide judgment and decree dated 18.08.1992, by holding that from the evidence on record there is no manner of doubt that all the relevant provisions were complied with before passing the impugned orders and personal hearing was also given to the plaintiff before passing those orders. Hence, the instant Regular Second Appeal.

6. The only argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant-plaintiff was not supplied the disagreement note and, therefore, there is a violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the order dated 20.06.1988, of stoppage of four annual grade increments of the appellant with cumulative effect is liable to be set aside.

7. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the said contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant and sub