State of Punjab & Anr. v. Sucha Singh

Mr. B.B.S.Teji, AAG, Punjab, for the appellant. None for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Sucha Singh, a Driver of the Punjab Roadways at Pathankot, was inflicted a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect on 23.4.1981. He was imposed another punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect on

23.12.1982. Respondent-plaintiff Sucha Singh challenged these orders by filing a civil suit. The plea was that the charge sheet and the show cause notice issued to him were illegal and were passed on suspicion. The enquiry, which was ordered, was not conducted as per the Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.638 OF 1986 :{ 2 }: (for short, “Service Rules”) and accordingly principles of natural justice were violated. The claim of the respondent-plaintiff was that he was not afforded any opportunity as required under the Service Rules. The suit was contested and it was pleaded that all the procedures were followed and departmental enquiry was duly conducted. The civil suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, the respondent-plaintiff filed an appeal and the first Appellate Court has reversed the finding. The allegation against the respondent-plaintiff for which he was awarded penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is that on 21.11.1978, he was detailed to drive Bus No.3707 on Delhi Pathankot route. Inspector Swarn Singh was standing at the Phagwara. When this bus reached there, two passengers got down who were without tickets. When the Inspector proceeded towards the bus, the respondent-plaintiff drove the same on a signal received from the Conductor. Some other passengers had given in writing that the respondent-plaintiff had consumed bottle of liquor at Moorthal and had purchased another bottle of liquor at Pipli, which he had consumed. The appellant statedly had meal at some hotel at Rajpura. On receipt of this report, the respondent was charge- sheeted. He gave his reply, which was considered and found unsatisfactory. The enquiry was thereafter ordered. At request of the delinquent, the enquiry was shifted to the Traffic Manager. There was no head way made in the enquiry and no witness was examined by the Department. Despite this fact, the General Manager passed an order saying that he has gone through the enquiry file and agrees REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.638 OF 1986 :{ 3 }: with what is contained in it. On this basis, the respondent was issued a show cause notice for punishment of stoppage of increment. In this background, it was found that the order dated 23.4.1981 is based on no evidence. The punishment awarded was stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, which was taken to be a minor penalty. Accordingly, this action was sought to be justified on the ground that the procedure adopted to impose this punishment after seeking explanation, which was found unsatisfactory, would be legally appropriate and correct procedure. It is accordingly pleaded that this would show compliance to the provisions contained in Rule 10 of the Service Rules. Accordingly, the punishment was held to be justified. The whole fallacy in the punishment so imposed would be on the ground that it was treated as a minor penalty. By now, it is fully settled that stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and procedure under Rule 8 of Service Rules was required to be followed and not the procedure as given in Rule 10 of the Service Rules, which is for awarding minor penalty. This fact would be enough not to interfere in the view taken by the first Appellate Court. In fact, the enquiry was directed in this case, meaning thereby, that it was proposed to award major penalty. No witness could be examined in the enquiry and accordingly the matter was reported to the General Manager by the Enquiry Officer. Strangely, he agreed with the Enquiry Officer and inflicted major penalty, which was without holding any enquiry. It has rightly been taken to be a case of no evidence as none of the witness was examined in support of the allegation. REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.638 OF 1986 :{ 4 }: Coming to the second charge, which was also a case of major penalty, the allegation was that on 9.3.1982, the respondent was on a night duty and when the bus reached at Dera Bassi at 2 A.M. on 10.3.1982, the same was left on the road and it fell into the ditch 15 feet away. This fact was not reported to the Adda Incharge. The bus was got lifted by the respondent and the conductor with the help of crane. The passengers travelling in the bus were transferred to some other bus and, thus, the charge of negligence was made. After serving a charge sheet, Enquiry Officer was detailed and the statements of Tarsem Lal and Himmat Singh were recorded. The first Appellate Court found it to be hear say as neither of them stated that the respondent had left the bus on the road, which could show any negligence on his part. The defence taken by the respondent was that it was raining and so the bus slipped and fell into the kacha berm of the road. This version had received support from the statement of Tarsem Lal, who stated that it was raining intermittently. Accordingly, it was observed that there was no evidence of negligence available on record, on the basis of which the respondent could be awarded this penalty. The view taken by the first Appellate Court in this regard may appear to be that the Court had resorted to appreciate the evidence. It would also appear that the first Appellate Court viewed that it is a case of lack of evidence as no evidence in regard to negligence was available or produced before the Enquiry Officer. In this background, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration in this case. At the time of notice of motion and admission of this REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.638 OF 1986 :{ 5 }: Regular Second Appeal, the submission was that stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was a minor punishment and, thus, could be disposed of with the issuance of show cause notice. That being the reason, which promoted this Court to issue notice, can not now be legally advanced. Concededly, the punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty and could be inflicted only after holding a proper enquiry. The enquiry held in this case certainly is not properly held and it is a case of no evidence. No case for interference, thus, is made out. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. February 24, 2010 khurmi ( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE