Haryana State and Others Haryana State and Others v. Sh. S.L.Punia
Case Details
2001 (O&M) RSA-2827-2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA RSA-2827-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.04.2025 Date of Decision : Haryana State and Others Haryana State and Others ....Appellants VERSUS Sh. S.L.Punia ....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Shivendra Swaroop, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Ajay Kumar Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Kumar Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Ajay Kumar Yadav, Advocate for Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the respondent Mr. R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the respondent. -.- SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J (Oral). SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J (Oral). The present appeal is preferred against the The present appeal is judgment and decree dated preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2001 passed by the learned passed by the learned Additional District , whereby the District Judge, Hisar, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment and decree dated appeal filed by the respondent 31.07.2000 against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Hisar, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Hisar, was allowed.
Legal Reasoning
BRIEF FACTS BRIEF FACTS 2. The brief facts of the present case are that The brief facts working are that the respondent was working as Executive Engineer in Rori Division, Sirsa from 01.01. as Executive Engineer and from 01.01.1982 to 31.03.1982 and worked as again from 01.04.1982 to 19.05.1986. Thereafter, the respondent worked as again from 01.04.1982 to 19.05.1986. Thereafter, the respondent again from 01.04.1982 to 19.05.1986. Thereafter, the respondent Executive Engineer, Construction Division No.4, Fatehabad. When the respondent Executive Engineer, Construction Division No.4, Fatehabad. When the respondent Executive Engineer, Construction Division No.4, Fatehabad. When the respondent Executive Engineer, Construction Division No.4, Fatehabad. When the respondent sheeted ed as Executive Engineer Rori Division, Sirsa, he was charge-sheeted ed as Executive Engineer Rori Division, Sirsa was posted as Executive Engineer Rori Division, Sirsa under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1987, (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987, . He submitted reply to the same and thereafter, after vide memo dated 09.12.1991. He submitted reply to the same and thereafter, after . He submitted reply to the same and thereafter, after vide memo dated 09.12.1991 giving him opportunity of personal hearing, vide order dated 12.09.1994, recovery opportunity of personal hearing, vide order dated 12.09.1994, recovery personal hearing, vide order dated 12.09.1994, recovery of Rs.51,265.40 paise and stoppage of two increments without of Rs.51,265.40 paise and stoppag effect e of two increments without cumulative effect . He filed civil suit challenging order dated 12.09.1994, which was was ordered. He filed civil suit challenging order dated 12.09.1994, which was . He filed civil suit challenging order dated 12.09.1994, which was . He filed civil suit challenging order dated 12.09.1994, which was TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.07 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2001 (O&M) RSA-2827-2001 (O&M) -2- dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hisar, vide its judgment and dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hisar, vide its judgment and dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hisar, vide its judgment and dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hisar, vide its judgment and decree dated 31.07.2000. decree dated 31.07.2000. 3. preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Thereafter, respondent preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Thereafter, learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide its judgment and decree dated learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide its judgment and decree dated learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide its judgment and decree dated learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide its judgment and decree dated 19.01.2001. 4. Hence the present appeal by the State of Haryana. Hence the present appeal by the State of Hence the present appeal by the State of SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL 5. Learned counsel for the appellants Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the First Appellate s contends that the First Appellate of the learned Trial Court without appreciating the Court has reversed the findings of the learned Trial Court without appreciating the of the learned Trial Court without appreciating the Court has reversed the finding evidence on record. He further contends that the First Appellate Court has wrongly evidence on record. He further contends that the First Appellate Court has wrongly evidence on record. He further contends that the First Appellate Court has wrongly evidence on record. He further contends that the First Appellate Court has wrongly Therefore, he prays that the present held that impugned order is non-speaking. Therefore, he prays that the present Therefore, he prays that the present held that impugned o appeal be allowed. appeal be allowed. 6.
Legal Reasoning
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Per contra, argues on the lines of learned counsel for the respondent argues on the lines of filed by the the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2001 and contends that the appeal filed by the the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2001 and contends that the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2001 and contends that respondent has rightl has rightly been allowed by the learned after by the learned First Appellate Court after taking into consideration consideration the evidence on record. He further contends that the evidence on record. He further contends that the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and recovery of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and recovery of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and recovery of punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs.51,265.40 paisa paisa also amounts to double jeopardy Therefore, he prays for double jeopardy. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal dismissal of the present appeal 7. learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole I have heard record of this case. record of this case. 8. This Court, vide order dated 11.11.2002, This Court while admitting the present , vide order dated 11.11.2002, while admitting the present appeal stayed the the operation of the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2001 passed by judgment and decree dated 19.01.2001 passed by the learned First Appellate Court First Appellate Court. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.07 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2001 (O&M) RSA-2827-2001 (O&M) -3- 9. sheet under Rule 8 A perusal of the record further shows that charge-sheet under Rule 8 A perusal of the record further shows that A perusal of the record further shows that of Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) of Punjab Civil Rules, 1987 was issued to the Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 was issued to the also respondent and he filed reply to the same. Further, personal hearing was also respondent and he filed reply to the same. Further respondent and he filed reply to the same. Further given to him. 10. A perusal of the record further shows that an enquiry of vigilance A perusal of the record further shows that an enquiry of vigilance A perusal of the record further shows that an enquiry of vigilance A perusal of the record further shows that an enquiry of vigilance against department was conducted on the complaint and there were 11 allegations against department was conducted on the complaint and there were 11 department was conducted on the complaint and there were 11 the respondent and after due consideration at all the levels, it was decided by the the respondent and after due consideration at all the levels, it was decided by the the respondent and after due consideration at all the levels, it was decided by the the respondent and after due consideration at all the levels, it was decided by the appellant to issue charge-sheet to the respondent. Before serving the charge appellant to issue charge sheet sheet to the respondent. Before serving the charge-sheet respondent was afforded an opportunity to explain his case. Further respondent was , it is admitted an opportunity to explain his case. Further, it is admitted by way and matter of record that after giving due opportunity of being heard (by way and matter of record that after giving due opportunity of being heard fact and matter of record that after giving due opportunity of being heard , the impugned order was passed. of filing reply as well as personal hearing), the impugned order was passed. of filing reply as well as personal hearing 11. So far as order of punishment of recovery of Rs.51,265.40 paisa So far as order of punishment of recovery of Rs.51,265.40 So far as order of punishment of recovery of Rs.51,265.40 paisa is State ned, the same is imposed since the loss was caused to the appellant-State ned, the same is imposed since the loss was caused to the appellant concerned, the same is imposed since the loss was caused to the appellant due to negligence of the respondent. In fact the respondent did not allow Gurdeep negligence of the respondent. In fact the respondent did not allow Gurdeep the respondent. In fact the respondent did not allow Gurdeep Singh, Canal Patwari, to join his duties from 13.07.1983 to 08.05.1986 and he filed Singh, Canal Patwari, to join his duties from 13.07.1983 to 08.05.1986 and he filed Singh, Canal Patwari, to join his duties from 13.07.1983 to 08.05.1986 and he filed Singh, Canal Patwari, to join his duties from 13.07.1983 to 08.05.1986 and he filed Sirsa, which was decreed in his favour and the appellant was directed a civil suit at Sirsa, which was decreed in his favour and the appellant was directed Sirsa, which was decreed in his favour and the appellant was directed Sirsa, which was decreed in his favour and the appellant was directed by the Court to pay him salary to pay him salary for this period to the (13.07.1983 to 08.05.1986) to the tune of Rs.51,265.40 and it is matter of record that the appellants had to bear this tune of Rs.51,265.40 and it is matter of record that the appellants had to bear this tune of Rs.51,265.40 and it is matter of record that the appellants had to bear this tune of Rs.51,265.40 and it is matter of record that the appellants had to bear this loss because of the conduct of the respondent. loss because of the 12. Admittedly, in the present case the punishment was imposed after Admittedly, in the present case the punishment was imposed after Admittedly, in the present case the punishment was imposed after Admittedly, in the present case the punishment was imposed after Rules. Further following due procedure as laid down under the Civil Services Rules. Further following due procedure as laid down under the Civil Service following due procedure as laid down under the Civil Service ment because of the conduct of the respondent, it is evident on record that vide judgment because of the conduct of the respondent, it is evident on record that vide judg because of the conduct of the respondent, it is evident on record that vide judg and decree dated 26.04.1986, learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, held the and decree dated 26.04.1986, learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, held the and decree dated 26.04.1986, learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, held the and decree dated 26.04.1986, learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, held the as well as respondent liable to pay the amount of salary to Gurdeep appellants as well as respondent liable to pay the amount of salary to Gurdeep as well as respondent liable to pay the amount of salary to Gurdeep as well as respondent liable to pay the amount of salary to Gurdeep he learned Additional Singh, Canal Patwari. And since it was the decision of the learned Additional Singh, Canal Patwari. And since it was the decision of Singh, Canal Patwari. And since it was the decision of TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.07 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2001 (O&M) RSA-2827-2001 (O&M) -4- District Judge, Sirsa, vide which respondent was held liable to pay the amount of Judge, Sirsa, vide which respondent was held liable to pay the amount of Judge, Sirsa, vide which respondent was held liable to pay the amount of Judge, Sirsa, vide which respondent was held liable to pay the amount of and Rs.51,265.40 paisa and the respondent never challenged the said judgment and Rs.51,265.40 paisa and the respondent never challenged the said judgment Rs.51,265.40 paisa and the respondent never challenged the said judgment , therefore this Court finds that recovery of loss of Rs.51,265.40 paisa from decree, therefore this Court finds that recovery of loss of Rs.51,265.40 paisa from , therefore this Court finds that recovery of loss of Rs.51,265.40 paisa from , therefore this Court finds that recovery of loss of Rs.51,265.40 paisa from ot amount to double jeopardy, therefore, it requires no the respondent would not amount to double jeopardy, therefore, it requires no ot amount to double jeopardy, therefore, it requires no the respondent interference by this Court by this Court. 13. Learned First Appellate Court has totally ignored all the admitted Learned First Appellate Court has totally ignored all the admitted Learned First Appellate Court has totally ignored all the admitted Learned First Appellate Court has totally ignored all the admitted facts and evidence on record and further treated the punishment of recovery of loss facts and evidence on record and further treated the punishment of recovery of loss facts and evidence on record and further treated the punishment of recovery of loss facts and evidence on record and further treated the punishment of recovery of loss of Rs.51,265.40 paisa and stoppage of two increments without of Rs.51,265.40 and stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect effect as is not acceptable to this Court. double jeopardy, which is not acceptable to this Court. double jeopardy, 14. the appeal Further the learned First Appellate Court while allowing the appeal Further the learned First Appellate Court while allow Further the learned First Appellate Court while allow filed by the respondent gave liberty to Punishing Authority filed by the respondent to decide the matter liberty to Punishing Authority to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law, without appreciating the fact that the punishment of afresh, in accordance with law, without appreciating the fact that the punishment of afresh, in accordance with law, without appreciating the fact that the punishment of afresh, in accordance with law, without appreciating the fact that the punishment of and stoppage of two increments without recovery of Rs.51,265.40 paisa and stoppage of two increments without and stoppage of two increments without recovery of Rs.51,265.40 pais cumulative effect, was imposed giving full opportunity of being heard i.e. a effect, was imposed by giving full opportunity of being heard i.e. a fter personal hearing to the respondent. considering the reply as well as after giving personal hearing to the respondent. considering the reply as well as after giving 15. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed. Jud In view of the above, gment and the present appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree dated 19.01.2001 19.01.2001 passed by the learned is set aside passed by the learned First Appellate Court is set aside and judgment and decree dated 31.07.2000 passed by the learned Trial Court is decree dated 31.07.2000 passed by the learned Trial Court judgment and decree dated 31.07.2000 passed by the learned Trial Court upheld. 16. 17. Decree sheet be drawn. Decree sheet be dra
Decision
, if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application April 25, 2025. tripti (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether : Yes Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.07 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document