The High Court set aside the order dismissing the appellant's appeal because the lower courts wrongly relied on a distinguished precedent. The High Court held that the suit for declaration was dismissed, but no recovery is permitted as the respondent has retired.
Judgments and decrees passed by courts below set aside; suit dismissed; no recovery from respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RSA No.268 of 1998
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.268 of 1998 Date of Decision: 12.12.2008
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala
.....Appellant
Vs.
Gian Chand ....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
Present : Ms.Lovejinder Kaur, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Surjit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Deepinder Kaur, Advocate for the respondent.
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)
The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation challenges judgements and decrees dated 22.12.1994 and 14.10.1997, passed by the Additional Senior Sub Judge, Patiala and the Additional District Judge, Patiala, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing the appeal.
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit praying for a declaration that order dated 17.5.1991, terminating his services and the order dated 20.8.1991 dismissing his appeal are null and void, as the checking staff stopped the bus before he could issue tickets. It was further alleged that as the statements of passengers were not recorded, the punishing authority could not have accepted the enquiry report and punished the respondent. In opposition to the plaint, the appellant filed a written statement denying the
2
RSA No.268 of 1998
correctness of the averments in the plaint and asserting that departmental proceedings and the order of punishment did not suffer from any error prayed that the suit be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :-
After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial Court decreed the suit by holding that the enquiry and the order of punishment were vitiated, for failure to record statements of passengers. Reliance was placed on a judgement reported as State of Haryana V. Mohan Singh , 1985(2) SLR 116. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgement and decree of the trial court the appellant filed an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide judgement and decree dated 14.10.1997 dismissed the appeal.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the Courts below committed an error as the judgment in Mohan Singh's case (supra), has been over-ruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Surat Singh V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak and another, 1997(4) RSJ, 386
by holding that to bring home the guilt of a bus conductor, accused of not issuing tickets to passengers, it is not necessary to record the statements of
3
RSA No.268 of 1998
passengers. Reliance is also placed on State of Haryana and another V. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 S.C. 1512(1) to urge that the impugned judgements be set aside.
Counsel for the respondent does not deny the correctness of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant but submits that Courts below set aside the punishment on another ground as well namely; that the Inspector who appeared as a departmental witness did not depose that passengers informed him that tickets had not been issued to them. It is submitted that this fact assumes significance, in view of the respondent's stand that the bus was checked before he could issue tickets to the passengers. It is, therefore, argued that as the basic ingredients required to bring home the respondent's guilt are missing, the Courts below rightly decreed the suit and dismissed the appeal. It is further submitted that as during the pendency of the appeal the respondent has retired after he was reinstated, a lenient view should be taken.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgements.
The question of law that arises for consideration is : “1. Whether a domestic enquiry and the consequent order of punishment can be held to be illegal for failure to record the statements of the passengers ?”
Admittedly, the judgment in Mohan Singh's case (supra), has been over-ruled in Surat Singh V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak and another, 1997(4) RSJ, 386 by holding it is not necessary to record the statements of passengers to hold a defaulting conductor guilty. It
4
RSA No.268 of 1998
appears that the aforementioned fact was not brought to the notice of the courts below. It would, therefore, have to be held that the Courts below erred in placing reliance upon the judgment in Mohan Singh's case (supra ) to hold that the domestic enquiry and the order of punishment are illegal and void and as a result, their findings to that effect would have to be set aside.
As regards the submission by counsel for the respondent that departmental proceedings and the order of punishment are illegal, as the Inspector failed to depose that passengers informed him that tickets had not been issued, cannot be accepted, as such a statement falls within the realm of hearsay evidence and would, therefore, be inadmissible.
In view of what has been stated herein above, the appeal is accepted, the judgements and decrees passed by the Courts below are set aside and the suit filed by the respondent is dismissed.
However, as the respondent has retired from service, after reinstatement, pursuant to the judgements and decrees passed by the Courts below, no recoveries of any amount already received by the respondent shall be effected. No order as to costs.
(RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE
12.12.2008 GS
RSA No.268 of 1998
5
The judicial adjudication, relating to orders passed in departmental proceedings is confined to an appraisal of the proceedings and the order passed thereon, so as to determine, whether the proceedings and orders passed thereon are in any manner, arbitrary, perverse, malafide, violative of any mandatory provision of law and more significant of all that these infractions or infirmities have caused prejudice to the delinquent official in putting forth his defence.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a domestic enquiry and the consequent order of punishment can be held illegal for failure to record the statements of the passengers?
Whether the High Court should set aside the lower courts' reliance on Pioneer's case in light of subsequent rulings?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana V. Mohan SinghDistinguished¶14
State of Haryana V. Mohan Singh, 1985(2) SLR 116
Surat Singh V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak and anotherExplained¶23
Surat Singh V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak and another, 1997(4) RSJ, 386
State of Haryana and another V. Rattan SinghRelied on¶27
State of Haryana and another V. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 S.C. 1512(1) · Who else cites this
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala
Gian Chand
Rajive Bhalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
