The Court dismissed a regular second appeal against a suit dismissal in a civil service disciplinary case. The appellant argued a dissent note was needed as embezzlement charges were not established. The Court held no question of law arose.
The regular second appeal was dismissed.
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.
Regular Second Appeal No. 2863 of 1986
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 2863 of 1986 Date of decision: 23.03.2010
Ajaib Singh
...Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Sarwan Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.S. Rapri, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the State.
RANJIT SINGH J.
The appellant-plaintiff was employed as Conductor and was posted at Ferozepur. On 25.8.1983, he was issued a charge sheet after being placed under suspension. The proceedings were initiated against him for imposing penalty. Ultimately, order withholding three annual increment with cumulative effect was passed. The appellant filed a suit to challenge the same on the ground that these orders were illegal, ultra vires, null, void and was in violation of principle of natural justice. He had also challenged the order passed by the punishing authority. The impugned order was challenged on number of grounds like charge sheet was not definite and specific. The inquiry held in this case was statedly containing various irregularities and illegalities. The appellant was denied the assistance of co-worker and was allegedly not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. It was also alleged that the appellant
Regular Second Appeal No. 2863 of 1986
2
was not given opportunity to produce his defence witnesses.
In the written statement filed, the respondent-State took a preliminary objection about the jurisdiction of the civil Court to try the suit. The allegations made in the plaint were denied. The factual position about the service of the appellant was admitted and so too the passing of the impugned order dated 25.08.1983.
The suit was tried on the following issues by the trial
court:-
On the basis of evidence led, the trial Court decided issues No. 1 and 2 against the appellant. Issue No. 3 was decided against respondent-State whereas issue No. 4 was decided in favour of the appellant. In view of above finding, the suit was dismissed with costs. Against this, the appellant filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur. The said appeal was dismissed on 29.05.1986. Thereafter, the present Regular Second Appeal was filed.
Regular Second Appeal No. 2863 of 1986
3
Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has made a submission before me on a solitary ground by contending that the charge against the appellant was for embezzlement and the resultant negligence arising therefrom. The inquiry officer, however, found that the charge of embezzlement was not established but still held the appellant guilty of some negligence by not issuing ticket to the passenger. As per the learned counsel, the punishing authority without recording any dissent note went ahead to punish the appellant, which could not have been done in view of the settled law. The learned senior counsel has drawn my attention to the charge leveled against the appellant and to the show cause notice issued to the appellant before awarding him penalty of stoppage of 3 increment with cumulative effect.
I have minutely perused the charge sheet served upon the appellant. There was no allegation of embezzlement made in the charge. The gravamen of the charge in this case was that the appellant was negligent in not issuing ticket to a relative of an employee and it is mentioned in the charge that by not issuing the ticket, he was to collect an amount of ticket for Rs. 5.30p in order to embezzle the same. The charge as read would be to the effect that the appellant had made an attempt to embezzle the amount and not that there was any embezzlement. That part of the charge obviously was not established of which the appellant was exonerated by the inquiry officer. The punishing authority had agreed with the finding returned by the inquiry officer and did not differ with the same. This would be apparent from the show cause notice issued to the appellant before awarding him the impugned penalty. It is clearly
Regular Second Appeal No. 2863 of 1986
4
mentioned in the show cause notice that the punishing authority had agreed with the finding returned by the inquiry officer, which was only to the effect that he had been negligent in performance of his duty by not issuing ticket to the passenger. There was no finding by the inquiry officer about embezzlement or attempt to embezzle with which there was any need for the punishing authority to differ with the said finding.
In this background, the submission that the dissent note was required to the recorded before punishing the appellant cannot be accepted. I find no merit in the plea raised before me. There is no substantial question of law arising in this case.
The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
March 23, 2010 rts
(RANJIT SINGH) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a dissent note by the punishing authority was required when the charge of embezzlement was not established and only negligence in non-issuance of ticket was found?
Whether the High Court found any substantial question of law arising in the appeal?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ajaib Singh
State of Punjab
RANJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
