Advocates:
['A G PUNJAB', 'R S SHARMA', 'DHEERAJ SHARMA', '']

RSA No. 2434 of 1990 (O&M)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

RSA No. 2434 of 1990 (O&M)

Date of Decision 24.9.2014

The State of Punjab through the Secretary to Government of Punjab,

Transport Department

....Appellant

Versus

Gurmit Singh

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

Present: Mr. L.S.Virk, Additional A.G. Punjab.

None for the respondents.

***

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

***

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.

(Oral)

It is defendant's second appeal, against the concurrent

findings of facts recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby

suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff, was decreed.

Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned first

appellate court in para 2 and 3 of the impugned judgment, are that

plaintiff-respondent Gurmit Singh instituted a suit for declaration to

the effect that the order No. 8228-32/ST (GM) dated 16.7.1987,

passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Depot No.2

Jalandhar whereby the plaintiff was removed from services

AMIT KUMAR

2014.10.01 14:12

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

RSA No. 2434 of 1990 (O&M)

2

forfeituring his pay and allowances, was illegal, void, based upon no

evidence and not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff continued to

be in the service of the defendant with entitlement to all pay and

allowances from the period of suspension till re-instatement, Plaintiff

averred that since he was employed as a conductor No. 164 in

Punjab Roadways Depot No.2, which was a State Government

Undertaking, therefore, he was a civil servant and entitled to the

Constitutional protection enshrined under Article 311 of the

Constitution of India. It was averred that on the basis of false

complaint, he was charge-sheeted for having defrauded the

Department to the tune of `135.80 P, vide memo No. 9101/TA dated

12.12.1986 by the General Manager Punjab Roadways, Jalandhar

Depot No.2. The charge sheet was quite vague, defective and not

drawn according to the Service Rules. A copy of the complaint on

which the charge sheet was based, was not supplied to the plaintiff in

spite of his repeated demands. He could not submit proper reply to

the charge sheet. The General Manager, without considering the

reply of the plaintiff, ordered the enquiry against the plaintiff in a ritual

manner. The plaintiff being not conversant with the Rules, was

incapable in propounding his defence and he was not given

assistance of a co-worker in the enquiry proceedings. The request of

the plaintiff for the assistance of a co-worker, was declined by the

Enquiry Officer and as such, he was denied of reasonable

opportunity of defence. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry

with a biased mind and plaintiff could not plead his case properly.

The Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Ultimately, the General

AMIT KUMAR

2014.10.01 14:12

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

RSA No. 2434 of 1990 (O&M)

3

Manager passed the impugned order terminating the services of the

plaintiff. It was further averred that the plaintiff was not entitled to

any amount except the subsistence allowance. The order of the

removal of the plaintiff from services as well as forfeiture of pay

during the suspension period, was illegal biased, cryptic, based on

no evidence, against the Principles of Natural Justice and provisions

of Punjab Civl Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. A

notice under Section 80 CPC was served upon the defendant, but

the same was not accepted. Hence the suit was filed.

When served, the defendant contested the suit by taking

preliminary objection that the suit was bad for want of non-joinder of

necessary parties. On merits, the employment of the

plaintiff-conductor, issuance of charge-sheet and holding of enquir