Pritam Chand v. Punjab State and Another Punjab State and
Case Details
2001 (O&M) RSA-4711-2001 (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-4711-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision : 05.03.2025 Date of Decision : Pritam Chand ....Appellant VERSUS Punjab State and Another Punjab State and ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate and Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate and Mr. Shourya Mehra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Shourya Mehra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Shourya Mehra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.S.Gill, Sr. DAG, Punjab. . Mr. S.S.Gill, Sr. DAG, Punjab. -.- SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J (Oral). SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J (Oral). The present appeal is preferred against the The present appeal is dated preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the appeal passed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the appeal District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the appeal State against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.1999 filed by the respondent – State against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.1999 State against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.1999 filed by the respondent passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), passed by the learned Batala was accepted (Sr. Division), Batala was accepted and the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. and the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. and the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. BRIEF FACTS BRIEF FACTS 2. case are that the appellant was working as The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as case are that the appellant was working as The brief facts Conductor in the respondent Department. The enquiry was conducted against the onductor in the respondent – Department. The enquiry was conducted against the Department. The enquiry was conducted against the 33/Steno/GM dated 19.07.1996 appellant, which culminated into Order No.4730-33/Steno/GM dated 19.07.1996 appellant, which culminated into Order No.4730 appellant, which culminated into Order No.4730 by which the pay of the appellant was reduced to minimum of time scale of pay for by which the pay of the appellant was reduced to minimum of time scale of pay for by which the pay of the appellant was reduced to minimum of time scale of pay for by which the pay of the appellant was reduced to minimum of time scale of pay for ears forfeiting all his arrears during which he remained under a period of five years forfeiting all his arrears during which he remained under ears forfeiting all his arrears during which he remained under a period of five y suspension, over and above the subsistence allowance already paid to him. suspension, over and above the subsistence allowance already paid to him. suspension, over and above the subsistence allowance already paid to him. TRIPTI SAINI 2025.03.28 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2001 (O&M) RSA-4711-2001 (O&M) -2- 3. which was He filed civil suit challenging the order dated 19.07.1996 which was He filed civil suit challenging the He filed civil suit challenging the ge (Sr. Division), Batala, vide its decreed in his favour by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Batala, vide its decreed in his favour by Additional Civil Jud decreed in his favour by Additional Civil Jud judgment and decree dated 19.01.1999. judgment and decree dated 19.01.1999. 4. The respondent/State of Punjab filed appeal challenging the judgment The respondent/State of Punjab filed appeal challenging the judgment The respondent/State of Punjab filed appeal challenging the judgment The respondent/State of Punjab filed appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), and decree dated 19.01.1999 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), and decree dated 19.01.199 Batala, which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur Batala, which was allowed , vide its by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide its judgment and decree dated 21.08.2001. judgment and decree dated 21.08.2001. 5. Hence the present appeal. Hence the present appeal. SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned First Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned First Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned First Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned First Appellate Court has totally ignored the contention of the appellant that punishing Appellate Court has totally ignored the contention of the appellant that punishing Appellate Court has totally ignored the contention of the appellant that punishing Appellate Court has totally ignored the contention of the appellant that punishing authority passed the impugned order dated 19.07.1996 without application of authority passed the impugned order dated 19.07.1996 without application of authority passed the impugned order dated 19.07.1996 without application of authority passed the impugned order dated 19.07.1996 without application of mind. 7. argues on the lines of the judgment Per contra, learned State counsel argues on the lines of the judgment argues on the lines of the judgment Per contra, First Appellate Court. and decreed passed by the learned First Appellate Court. and decreed passed by the 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case. record of this case. 9. lenging the order dated The civil suit was filed by the appellant challenging the order dated The civil suit was filed by the appellant chal The civil suit was filed by the appellant chal 19.07.1996, whereby the pay of the appellant was reduced to minimum of time 19.07.1996, whereby the pay of the appellant was reduced to minimum of time 19.07.1996, whereby the pay of the appellant was reduced to minimum of time 19.07.1996, whereby the pay of the appellant was reduced to minimum of time scale of pay for a period of five years forfeiting all his arrears during which he pay for a period of five years forfeiting all his arrears during which he forfeiting all his arrears during which he dy paid remained under suspension, over and above the subsistence allowance already paid remained under suspension, over and above the subsistence allowance alrea remained under suspension, over and above the subsistence allowance alrea to him inter alia sheet was not served with open and inter alia on the ground that charge-sheet was not served with open and sheet was not served with open and judicious mind and he was not supplied the relevant documents forming the basis judicious mind and he was not supplied the relevant documents forming the basis judicious mind and he was not supplied the relevant documents forming the basis judicious mind and he was not supplied the relevant documents forming the basis sheet. His further ground to challenge was that he was not allowed to of charge-sheet. His further ground to challenge was that he was not allowed to sheet. His further ground to challenge was that he was not allowed to sheet. His further ground to challenge was that he was not allowed to sheet submitted by him was not the record and that the reply to the charge-sheet submitted by him was not the record and that the reply to the charge inspect the record and that the reply to the charge TRIPTI SAINI 2025.03.28 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2001 (O&M) RSA-4711-2001 (O&M) -3- considered. 10. State A perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent-State A perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent A perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent shows that charge-sheet was served upon the appellant, a shows that charge ll the relevant documents t was served upon the appellant, all the relevant documents were supplied to him and reply to charge were supplied to sheet was considered to be him and reply to charge-sheet was considered to be examined the witnesses during enquiry unsatisfactory. The appellant had cross-examined the witnesses during enquiry examined the witnesses during enquiry unsatisfactory. The appellant had cross proper show cause notice and considering the reply, and after giving him proper show cause notice and considering the reply and after giving the itself. It has been rightly enquiry report was submitted, which was thorough in itself. It has been rightly enquiry report was submitted, which was thorough in enquiry report was submitted, which was thorough in 12 of the judgment observed by the learned First Appellate Court that in para-12 of the judgment observed by the learned First Appellate Court that in para observed by the learned First Appellate Court that in para Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Batala, it has been passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Batala, it has been Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Batala, it has been passed by the learned specifically stated that reply was on page 103 of the enquiry file specifically stated Ex.P/1 and that that reply was on page 103 of the enquiry file as Ex.P/1 and that there was an endorsement in green ink on that reply made by the punishing there was an endorsement in green ink on that reply made by the punishing there was an endorsement in green ink on that reply made by the punishing there was an endorsement in green ink on that reply made by the punishing authority to the effect that reply was found to be unsatisfactory and the appellant effect that reply was found to be unsatisfactory and the appellant effect that reply was found to be unsatisfactory and the appellant was directed to appear for personal hearing. Even in the letter regarding person was directed to appear for personal hearing. Even in the letter regarding was directed to appear for personal hearing. Even in the letter regarding personal hearing it was endorsed that the appellant was heard in person and the reply was hearing it was endorsed that the appellant was heard in person and the reply was hearing it was endorsed that the appellant was heard in person and the reply was hearing it was endorsed that the appellant was heard in person and the reply was considered and the personal hearing was also given to the appellant. considered and the personal hearing was also given to the appellant. considered and the personal hearing was also given to the appellant. 11. A perusal of the record shows that notice of personal hearing was A perusal of the record shows that notice of personal hearing was A perusal of the record shows that notice of personal hearing was A perusal of the record shows that notice of personal hearing was two sentences were proposed; one for his proposed given to the appellant in which two sentences were proposed; one for his proposed two sentences were proposed; one for his proposed given to the appellant in which dismissal and second for forfeiture of pay and allowances during the suspension dismissal and second for forfeiture of pay and allowances during the suspension dismissal and second for forfeiture of pay and allowances during the suspension dismissal and second for forfeiture of pay and allowances during the suspension period. 12. A perusal of the record further shows that reply to the show cause A perusal of the record further shows that reply to the show cause A perusal of the record further shows that reply to the show cause A perusal of the record further shows that reply to the show cause 08.05.1996 and the same was found to be notice was filed by the appellant on 08.05.1996 and the same was found to be 08.05.1996 and the same was found to be notice was filed by the appellant on unsatisfactory vide noting of punishing authority dated unsatisfactory vide noting of punish 09.05.1996. He was called authority dated 09.05.1996. He was called tatement on the notice was recorded and for personal hearing for 02.07.1996. His statement on the notice was recorded and tatement on the notice was recorded and for personal hearing person and his reply had been then the order was made that he had been heard in person and his reply had been then the order was made that he had been heard in then the order was made that he had been heard in considered and taking lenient view, the order was passed reducing his pay to the considered and taking lenient view, the order was passed reducing his pay to the considered and taking lenient view, the order was passed reducing his pay to the considered and taking lenient view, the order was passed reducing his pay to the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.03.28 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2001 (O&M) RSA-4711-2001 (O&M) -4- minimum pay scale for the period of 05 years and forfeiture of the suspension minimum pay scale for the period of 05 years and forfeiture of the suspension minimum pay scale for the period of 05 years and forfeiture of the suspension minimum pay scale for the period of 05 years and forfeiture of the suspension cepted that the allowance. Therefore, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted that the allowance. Therefore, the contention of the appellant cannot be ac allowance. Therefore, the contention of the appellant cannot be ac impugned order dated 19.07.1996 was passed without any application of mind. impugned order dated 19.07.1996 was passed without any impugned order dated 19.07.1996 was passed without any 13. It is apparent from the record that proper enquiry was conducted and It is apparent from the record that proper enquiry was conducted and It is apparent from the record that proper enquiry was conducted and It is apparent from the record that proper enquiry was conducted and there is no document on record to show that the opportunity of being heard w there is no document as not record to show that the opportunity of being heard was not nly after considering the reply and after hearing the granted to the appellant. It is only after considering the reply and after hearing the nly after considering the reply and after hearing the granted to the appellant. It is o given, the appellant to whom the opportunity of personal hearing was also given, the appellant to whom the opportunity of personal hearing was appellant to whom the opportunity of personal hearing was impugned order dated 19.07.1996 was passed. impugned order dated 14. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur decree dated 21.08.2001 whereby passed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby State was accepted and the suit filed by the the appeal of the respondent – State was accepted and the suit filed by the State was accepted and the suit filed by the the appeal of the respondent appellant was dismissed. appellant was dismissed. 15. 16. 17. The present regular second appeal is dismissed. The present regular second appeal is dismissed The present regular second appeal is dismissed Decree sheet be drawn. Decree sheet be drawn.
Decision
, if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Pending application March 05, 2025. March 05, 2025. tripti (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE speaking : Speaking Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether : Yes Whether reportable Whether reportable TRIPTI SAINI 2025.03.28 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document