The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Yash Pal Kalra

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh Sra, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab for the appellants. Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate and Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent. A.N. JINDAL, J. Yashpal Kalra plaintiff/respondent (herein referred as 'plaintiff'), Head Analyst was slapped with penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, vide order dated 21.7.1993 and he also remained unsuccessful in getting the said penalty set aside by way of appeal, the right of which was available to him. Against imposition of the penalty, he preferred a suit on 17.12.2004, which was dismissed, vide judgment dated 11.4.2011. However, in appeal, the first appellate court, vide judgment dated 11.2.2012, while setting aside the judgment passed by the trial court, accepted his appeal, which is now under challenge. Admittedly, the respondent was appointed as Analyst on

6.7.1966 and promoted as Head Analyst on 2.9.1976. When he was posted as Head Analyst at Kapurthala Laboratory in 1990-1991, he was given additional charge of Sultanpur Lodhi Laboratory, as Head Analyst of RSA No. 2499 of 2012 2 Sultanpur Lodhi Laboratory was on leave. Admittedly, the plaintiff had not taken charge of Sultanpur Lodhi Laboratory and on verbal order of the Joint Director (Quality Control) Food & Supplies, he instructed junior analyst Sh. Hira Singh to look after the work of Sultanpur Lodhi Laboratory, as paddy season was in full swing and it was not possible for him to take additional charge of Sultanpur Lodhi Laboratory, which was at a distance of 25/30 kms from Kapurthala. Consequently, the plaintiff was charge-sheeted for making defiance of the order of the District Food Supplies Controller, Kapurthala, who, after holding an inquiry, imposed upon him a penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The said order was upheld in appeal. However, the order of penalty was challenged by way of suit on the ground that he was not bound by any such direction made by the District Food Supplies Controller. He further submitted that due to the fact that he was awfully occupied at Kapurthala, as per the direction of his superiors, he had directed the junior analyst to have the charge of Sultanpur Lodhi Laboratory, because of his inability to handle the charge at both places, in view of peak paddy season. The suit was contested by the State by filing written statement. Besides, taking some preliminary objections, it was pleaded that the plaintiff was asked to take additional charge of Sultanpur Lodhi Laboratory, therefore, he was duty bound to comply with the order of the District Food & Supplies Controller. Since he had disobeyed the orders, he was rightly charge sheeted. Replication was filed. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- RSA No. 2499 of 2012 3

1. Whether the orders dated 21.7.2003 and 27.3.1995 are illegal, void and liable to be set aside? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for? OPP

3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction? OPD

4. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

6. Whether no cause of action accrued to the plaintiff to file the present suit? OPD

7. Whether notice under Section 80 CPC served upon the defendants by the plaintiff is not legal and valid, if so, its effect? OPD

8. Relief. Both the parties led evidence. Trial court dismissed the suit, whereas the said judgment was reversed in appeal. Mr. Sra has mainly placed reliance on Ex. D.2, which indicates that where senior analyst has to proceed on leave, he can direct another junior analyst to work as In-charge, but where only one junior analyst is working and he wants to proceed on leave, he cannot direct another junior analyst to work as in-charge. In this situation, only District Food and Supply Controller is competent to order any senior analyst of other headquarters to work as in-charge of the lab. In the present case also, the District Food and Supply Controller had directed the plaintiff to take charge of the laboratory at Sultanpur Lodhi. RSA No. 2499 of 2012 4 As a matter of fact, in the present case, it has been duly explained by DW.1 Tarsem Lal, Superintendent through his affidavit Ex. DA that Yashpal Kalra informed the District Food and Supply Controller about his inability to perform his duty on account of peak paddy season so he directed the junior analyst to work as in-charge not of his own, but had instructed the junior analyst on the direction of the Joint Director. It is also mentioned in Ex. PA that he had taken the direction of the Joint Director on

20.10.1990 regarding instructing the junior analyst to work there. Since there was only one analyst at Sultanpur Lodhi, therefore, the District Food and Supply Controller could not issue direction to the in-charge of the other laboratory to take charge at a different place. It is an admitted fact that District Food and Supply Controller was not competent to transfer senior analyst and it was only the Joint Director to control the work of analyst in a particular lab, as such, the plaintiff can be said to have rightly defied the direction of the District Food and Supply Controller. Even otherwise, the Inquiry Officer neither issued any show cause notice nor gave personal hearing to the plaintiff. The Inquiry Officer also did not take into consideration the duties of the respective officers in connection with handing over the charge of a particular laboratory. As such, the plaintiff certainly appears to have been prejudiced in the process of the holding of the inquiry. Proper procedure appears to have not been followed by the Inquiry Officer before subjecting the plaintiff to penalty. Thus, all this goes to show that the first appellate court has taken right view of the matter while exonerating the plaintiff from the charge framed against him. RSA No. 2499 of 2012 5 No substantial question of law arises for determination. Dismissed. October 12, 2012 (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE