IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

R.S.A. No. 3480 of 2010 (O&M)

Date of decision: January 20, 2012

Harjit Singh

.. Appellant

Vs.

Punjabi University, Patiala and another

.. Respondents

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal

Present:

Mr. K.S. Chahal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Sumeet Brar, Advocate for the respondents.

A.N. Jindal, J

Having lost before both the courts, the plaintiff who was

slapped with the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative

effect, has preferred this regular second appeal.

In nutshell, the facts are that the plaintiff- appellant joined

Punjabi University, Patiala, as Learner Binder on 9.10.1992 and served his

department to the satisfaction of his superiors. It was alleged that on

18.11.1997, he was served with a charge sheet containing the following

charges :-

1.

He availed earned leave w.e.f. 16.6.1997 to 27.6.1997

without approval; and

2.

non performance of overtime duty on 12.4.1997 to

14.4.1997 during holidays.

Reply was submitted by the plaintiff alleging that since he was

to visit 'Hem Kunt Sahib', for which he had already reserved the tickets,

therefore,in the absence of the Press Manager being away to Delhi, he

appeared before the Registrar, who agreed to sanction the leave and

permitted him to go. The Enquiry Officer while conducting the enquiry in

a biased and arbitrary manner without providing assistance of any co-

worker, submitted the enquiry report. Consequently, he was served with

show cause notice on12.6.1998 and ultimately the enquiry resulted into

R.S.A. No. 3480 of 2010

-2-

***

stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect . His appeal was

dismissed by the Syndicate, Punjabi University, Patiala without application

of mind, therefore, he prayed for ignoring the enquiry report and setting

aside the penalty.

Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written statement

wherein it was alleged that the application for leave filed by the plaintiff

from 16.6.1997 to 27.6.1997 was declined by the Press Manager on account

of heavy rush of work in the Press. When he was asked by the Manager to

make a note in writing that his leave has not been sanctioned, the plaintiff

refused to do so. He manipulated to get his leave sanctioned directly from

the then Registrar of the University and when this fact came to the notice of

the Press Manager, the plaintiff was proceeded against. Consequently, a

charge sheet was issued to him. Enquiry was conducted and after

completing all the formalities, penalty aforesaid was imposed upon him.

The appeal preferred by him was also declined by the Syndicate on

29.10.2003.

From the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the

following :-

1.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration as

prayed for?OPP

2.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction

as prayed for?OPP

3.

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present

form?OPD

4.

Relief.

The plaintiff in order to shift the onus of the issues imposed

upon him, appeared in the witness box as PW-1. On the other hand, the

defendant examined Balbir Singh Sr. Assistant as DW-1 and closed the

evidence.

The trial court vide judgment dated 30.10.2006 dismissed the

suit, however, the appeal preferred by him was also dismissed.

Arguments heard. Record perused.

R.S.A. No. 3480 of 2010

-3-

***

The following substantial questions of law arise in this case for

determination :

1.

Whether the enquiry report is in violation of Rule 8.8 of

the Punjab Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1970?

2.

Whether the plaintiff stands prejudiced for non

providing him the assistance of the co-employee/worker

during the enquiry proceedings?

The learned counsel for the appellant has raised two fold

contentions. The first contention raised by the him is that the enquiry report

is in violation of the mandatory provisions of law. He was not pr