State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh

Present: Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the appellant. ***** RANJIT SINGH J. The State is in appeal against the judgment passed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Pathankot as well by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, setting aside the 10 orders of punishment separately passed against the respondent-plaintiff on different dates. Respondent-plaintiff was a Conductor, who was proceeded against and awarded the following 10 different punishment:- i) No. 2497/ECC dated 4.2.72 One increment stopped without cumulative effect. ii) No. 1738/ECC dated 10.8.72 One increment stopped with cumulative effect. iii) No. 1156/ECC dated 13.6.73 -do- iv) No. 5336-37/ECC dated 17.1.75 -do- Regular Second Appeal No. 3071 of 1985 2 v) No. 624-31/ST/GM dated 2.2.76 Two increments stopped with cumulative effect vi) No. 3196-97/TC dated 25.5.76 One increment stopped with cumulative effect vii) No. 3194-95/TC dated 2.5.76 One increment stopped with cumulative effect viii) No. 4009/TC dated 25.12.77 -do- ix) No. 2147/TA dated 26.10.78 One increment stopped with cumulative effect x) No. 6478/ST/GM dated 20.2.80 Three increments stopped without cumulative effect The respondent-plaintiff filed suit to challenge the punishments on various grounds. As per the averment in the suit, the pay scale of the respondent was revised to Rs. 400/- but his previous service was not counted towards increment. He according represented that his pay has not been fixed in the due pay scale. Thereafter, he inspected his service book and learned that the increments have not been allowed to him, as there were orders directing stoppage of increments vide the impugned orders as noted above. This happened in December, 1980. In the suit, the respondent-plaintiff alleged that while Regular Second Appeal No. 3071 of 1985 3 awarding this punishment, proper procedure was not followed. While considering the evidence, the trial Court found that through 8 orders of punishment, stoppage of increment were ordered with cumulative effect. The orders No. 5 to 8 and 10 listed above were not produced and so the adverse inference was drawn that the documents if produced would go in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. From this, it could also not be ascertained whether the procedure as laid down in Rule 8 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 was complied with before passing the impugned orders. It was also noted that 4 impugned orders i.e. No. 1738/ECC dated 10.8.1972, No. 1156/ECC dated 13.6.1973, No. 5336-37/ECC dated 17.1.1975 and No. 2147/TA dated 26.10.1978, were such where the penalty of stoppage of increments with cumulative effect had been made without following the procedure as laid down for awarding major penalty. It was also noted that no charge sheet alongwith statements of allegations, witnesses or any regular inquiry was conducted. Even further show cause notice against that punishment was not served. It was accordingly held that the mandatory requirement of rules was not followed and this will militate against the order as such requiring these to be set aside. It was also found that penalty of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed through order 2497/ECC dated

4.2.1972 by serving a show cause notice. It was found that the order passed in this regard was not a speaking order, as it contained no reason whatsoever for rejecting the explanation given by the respondent-plaintiff. It was also noticed that the procedure as Regular Second Appeal No. 3071 of 1985 4 contemplated in Rule 10 (b) read with Rule 5 was not followed while imposing this punishment. On the basis of above noted finding, the impugned order regarding stoppage of increment inflicted on the respondent-plaintiff was held illegal, null and void and against the principle of natural justice and so also in violation of service rules. The State failed in its appeal and have now filed the Regular Second Appeal. I find that no substantial question has been formulated. Infact the grounds of appeal also would not disclose any substantial question of law, which would arise in this case. The two grounds which are material in the Ground of Appeal only read that the entire approach of the courts below is against law and facts and that the Courts have not appreciated the evidence produced by the appellant. Nothing could be pointed out before me as to which evidence was not appreciated. As per the settled position of law, while awarding the major penalty holding of inquiry is a legal necessity. All those punishments where no inquiry was held thus cannot be sustained on this short ground. During the pendency of the case, the application was moved to place substantial question of law on record. One of the question so formulated is, “Whether the suit filed with regard to impugned orders is within limitation?” Plea of limitation was never raised before the Courts below and at this belated stage, it will not appropriate to permit the appellant to raise this question of law. Otherwise also, the question of limitation would not be that substantial question of law, which would be required to be gone into Regular Second Appeal No. 3071 of 1985 5 the Regular Second Appeal. The issue of limitation is also dependent on the facts in the each case being a mixed question of fact and law. Reference in this regard can be made to an order passed in SLP No. 7110 of 2007 titled as State of Haryana and others versus Satish Kumar, decided on 30.04.2007. It is observed as under:- “ As the first Appellate Court refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal, the question as to whether it was justified in doing so, in our opinion, would not be a substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 C.P.C.” There is no merit in the Regular Second Appeal, which also does not contain any substantial question of law. The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. February 11, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE