Appeal against dismissal of a suit challenging departmental charges of excess fund possession and ticket non-issuance. Appeal dismissed for no substantial question of law.
The appellant's appeal is 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. 1176 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 1176 of 2010 Date of Decision: 08.11.2011
Om Parkash
.. Appellant
VS.
State of Haryana & Anr.
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:Mr. S.S. Walia, Advocate for the appellant.
**Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG Haryana. *****
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
This is plaintiff's regular second appeal, challenging the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below, dismissing his suit for declaration and consequential relief of mandatory injunction.
The facts of the case are that on 3.8.1994, pursuant to a complaint made by one Baljit, the bus enroute Indri to Karnal, on which the plaintiff-appellant was Conductor, was checked by Sub Inspectors Jagdish and Sat Parkash of Roadways and the plaintiff was found in possession of Rs.619.50 ps. in excess as against the actual tickets issued by him. It was also found that he did not issue tickets of 40 passengers though he received a sum of Rs.6/- from each of them. Consequently, the plaintiff was chargesheeted in the departmental proceedings wherein though he admitted the excess amount, but claimed that he was given Rs.650/- by a book seller to fetch some guide. After the enquiry wherein Sub Inspector Jagdish was examined, the charges were found proved and accordingly punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was imposed on 11.10.1999. The appeal preferred against the punishment order was dismissed by the competent authority on 22.6.2004. The Department vide
Regular Second Appeal No. 1176 of 2010 2
letter dated 28.2.2007 also restricted the suspended period for subsistence allowance only. The plaintiff challenged the enquiry report dated 11.12.1998 as well as consequential orders by filing the suit. After the contest, the suit was dismissed as also his appeal. Hence, this regular second appeal.
Heard.
It is apparent that the stand taken by the plaintiff with regard to the excess amount in possession was not believed initially by the Enquiry Officer, before whom he failed to produce the alleged book seller, as well as by the Courts below. Even his version was found inconsistent with the amount so recovered in excess from his bag, than what he claimed to have received from the book seller. It has come on record that the plaintiff joined the departmental proceedings and vide writing (Ex.D6) he himself claimed that he does not want any enquiry and his case be decided as per rules. That apart, Sub Inspector Jagdish was examined before the Enquiry officer to proved the checking report vide which not only excess amount was recovered from the plaintiff, but also found that he did not issue tickets to 40 passengers though he received the amount in lieu thereof. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to say that the departmental proceedings were not taken place as per rules. Thus, it was rightly held by the Courts below that there is no illegality or infirmity in the enquiry conducted against the plaintiff and once this is the situation, the Civil Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal against the decision rendered by the competent authority in disciplinary proceedings.
There is no room to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below which are neither illegal nor perverse. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.
(ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE
November 08,2011 Jiten
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Court can sit as a Court of appeal against the decision rendered by the competent authority in disciplinary proceedings.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below calling the enquiry proceedings legal and proper were perverse.
Whether there is a substantial question of law arising for consideration in the regular second appeal.
Om Parkash
State of Haryana
Arvind Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
