Punjab State v. Jagtar Singh

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Chaudhary, AAG, Punjab for the appellant. Mr. V.K. Kataria, Advocate for the respondent. RANJIT SINGH J. The sole ground on which the appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff was allowed by the Court was that he was not given an opportunity to file reply to the charge sheet served upon him. The respondent-plaintiff, who was working as Conductor in Ferozepur depot was placed under suspension and charge sheeted on 10.11.1981. His services were terminated on 30.4.1982. He had filed the suit on the ground that he was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself at the stage of inquiry. The plea, primarily as noticed above, was that he was not given an opportunity to file reply to the charge sheet, which was clear violation of principle of natural justice. The conceded position as would emerge from the record Regular Second Appeal No. 3294 of 1985 2 is that the charge sheet was prepared on 10.11.1981. This was sent to the respondent-plaintiff through a Registered post. As per the version of the respondent-plaintiff, he received this charge sheet on

20.11.1981. As per the evidence given by him, he went to the office of appellant on 2.12.1981 for submitting his reply but the same was not accepted on the ground that inquiry officer had already been appointed on 30.11.1981. On this basis, it is pleaded that not only the principle of natural justice was violated by denying the right to file reply to the charge sheet but this even revealed violation of the statutory rules regulating the award of major penalty as given in Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as an 'Rules'). Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff would point out that he had been given 15 days to file reply to the charge sheet as can be seen from the charge sheet itself. Having received the charge sheet on 20.11.1981, the respondent-plaintiff had gone to the office of appellant to file reply on 2.12.1981, which was within 15 days. The trial Court, however, took a view that the respondent-plaintiff did not take any action to submit the copy of the reply to the dealing clerk or get it dairied in the office. The response given by the respondent- plaintiff to this was that he was not aware of the procedure. This was not believed as worthy of credence and accordingly the trial Court dismissed the suit by saying that no violation of principal of natural justice was seen. In an appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff, the appellate Court took a different view. After making detailed reference to Rule 8 (4), which concerns with the delivery of charge sheet and Regular Second Appeal No. 3294 of 1985 3 right of the employee to file reply, the Court came to the conclusion that the respondent-plaintiff was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself inasmuch as he was not afforded an opportunity to file reply to the charges alleged against him. It was also noticed that only evidence in this regard available on record was that the respondent-plaintiff had received the charge sheet on 20.11.1981. This evidence given by the respondent-plaintiff had gone un-rebutted. Accordingly, this was relied upon to say that there was violation of Rule 8(5) of the Rules. The relevant Rules 8(4) and 8 (5) reads as under:- Rule 8 (4) The punishing authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government employee a copy of the articles of charges, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and shall require the Government employee to submit, within such times as may be specified, a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. Rule 8 (5) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the punishing authority may itself inquire into such of the articles of charge as are not admitted or, if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint under Sub-rule (2), an inquiring authority for the purpose, and where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the Government Regular Second Appeal No. 3294 of 1985 4 employee in his written statement of defence, the punishing authority shall record its finding on each charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner laid down in Rule 9. (b) If no written statement of defence is submitted by the Government employee, the punishing authority may itself inquire into the articles of charge or may, if it considers it necessary to do so, appoint under Sub-rule (2), inquiring authority for the purpose. (c ) Where the punishing authority itself inquires into any article of charge or appoints an inquiring authority for holding an inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order appoint a Government employee or a legal practitioner, to be known as the 'Presenting Officer' to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge.” The right to file reply to a charge sheet is a statutory right and entire right to defend would flow from this right. If this is denied, it certainly would prejudice an employee. The evidence available on record was rightly appreciated by the First Appellate Court to say that the respondent-plaintiff had gone to file reply within the stipulated period but the same was not accepted. It would have been very easy for the department to produce the same person, who had allegedly refused to accept his reply to either admit or deny this fact. Once he has not been produced as witness, it can be said that the evidence which could be produced and was not produced, may have gone Regular Second Appeal No. 3294 of 1985 5 against the party withholding the same. An adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant. Otherwise, there was a positive evidence on record given by the respondent-plaintiff to show that he had gone to file reply, which was not accepted. There is thus not only violation of Rule 8(5) of the Rules but also of principle of natural justice. Despite opportunity given on 10.02.2009, the State has not made any effort to frame the substantial question of law that would arise in this case. The violation of principle of natural justice would be an issue, which may arise in this case but this issue has now been fully settled. As a matter of fact, it has been viewed that the principle of natural justice and the rule governing the award of major penalty were violated in this case. There is no case made out for interference in this Regular Second Appeal. Otherwise also it is pointed out before me that respondent-plaintiff has continued to work with the Department and is still in service without any further blemish. The Regular Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. February 15, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE