Second Appeal against dismissal of suit challenging departmental enquiry punishment. Supreme Court held no substantial question of law; civil court lacked jurisdiction to review merits of enquiry or proportionality of punishment absent procedural violation. Appeal dismissed.
Instant appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.4745 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.4745 of 2012 Date of Decision : 4.3.2014
Shyam Sunder
.....Appellant
Vs. State of Haryana and others ......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present : Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J
Feeling aggrieved against the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned courts below, thereby dismissing his suit for declaration, plaintiff has approached this court by way of instant Regular Second Appeal.
Facts in brief, as recorded by learned first appellate court in its impugned judgement, are that appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the impugned enquiry as well as punishment order dated 22.3.2006 passed by the defendant no.2 and the order of rejection of his appeal passed by the respondent/defendant no.3 were illegal, null and void and not binding upon his rights, inter alia, on the grounds that a departmental enquiry was initiated against him as well as Constable Mahavir Singh no.532 and Constable Jaibir Singh no.548 on account of his willful absence as well as raising quarrel with C. Ravinder Singh no.547 from duty on 25.9.2006 while his posting was as a Treasury Guard. In the said enquiry, enquiry officer without appreciating the respondent no.2 also passed the impugned order of
Sahni Greesh 2014.06.09 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
2
RSA No.4745 of 2012
sentence whereby his one future increment was ordered to be stopped with permanent effect vide order dated 22.3.2006. It was submitted that his absence from the duty was not willful nor he ever raised any dispute with Constable Ravinder Singh under the influence of liquor. All the allegations were totally false and frivolous. He made repeated request to the respondents/defendants to treat the impugned order of punishment as illegal and null and void but no attention was paid. Even serving of legal notice under Section 80 CPC dated 25.6.2007 upon them also caused no effect. So, he was constrained to file the suit.
The respondents/defendants filed written statement taking various preliminary objections of maintainability of suit, cause of action, locus standi, jurisdiction and contended of true and material facts from the court. It was contended that during the posting of the appellant/plaintiff as a Treasury Guard Nuh on 25.9.2006, he raised a quarrel with C. Ravinder Singhno.547 under the influence of liquor. On the same date, he was also found absent from duty at the time of checking by the SHO, Nuh. On these allegation, a departmental enquiry was ordered to be initiated, wherein, he was held guilty for absence from duty. On the basis of the said enquiry, the punishment was awarded under the rules, so, there was no illegality or infirmity therein. At the end, a prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.
On completion of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues :
“1. Whether finding of inquiry officer and punishment order dated 22.3.2006 and the rejection order of appeal are illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff are liable to be set aside and plaintiff is entitled to arrears of
Sahni Greesh 2014.06.09 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
3
RSA No.4745 of 2012
increment alongwith 18% interest per annum ?
In order to prove their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not prove his case. Consequently, the suit was dismissed vide impugned judgement and decree dated 4.10.2011. Plaintiff filed his first appeal, which also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide impugned judgement and decree dated 1.9.2012. Hence this second appeal, at the hands of the plaintiff.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was sufficient evidence available on record to decree the suit of the plaintiff. Punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was a major punishment and it was not warranted in the circumstances of the case. However, since the learned courts below misdirected themselves, while not appreciating the true facts of the case in the correct perspective, impugned judgements and decrees were not sustainable in law. He prays for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees, by allowing the present appeal.
Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that in view of the given fact situation of the present case, no interference is warranted at the hands of this court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC' for short). To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
It is a matter of record and not in dispute that the appellant was
Sahni Greesh 2014.06.09 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
RSA No.4745 of 2012 4
on guard duty at the Treasury, at the relevant point of time. He raised a quarrel with Constable Ravinder Singh 547, under the influence of liquor. Plaintiffappellant was also found absent from duty at the time of checking by SHO, Nuh. A departmental enquiry was ordered against him. Appellant was found guilty for absence from duty. On the basis of enquiry report, punishment of stoppage of one increment, with cumulative effect was imposed. Thus, the only issue involved in the civil suit was, whether the punishment awarded was disproportionate to the proved misconduct. After appreciating the facts and evidence available on record, the learned trial court rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not entitled for any relief, as he had failed to make out a case for interference. Cogent findings recorded by the learned trial court were rightly upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, while dismissing the first appeal. Having said that, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned courts below committed no error of law, while passing the impugned judgements and the same deserve to be upheld.
As noticed herein above, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any illegality in conducting of regular departmental enquiry. It was also not the case of the plaintiff-appellant that any rules of natural justice were violated by the respondents either in conducting the enquiry or at any other stage, before passing the impugned order of punishment. There was nothing on record to show that the punishment awarded was disproportionate to the proved misconduct. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the findings recorded by the learned courts below are based on sound reasons and the impugned judgements and decrees deserve to be upheld, for this reason also.
Before arriving at a judicious conclusion, learned lower appellate
Sahni Greesh 2014.06.09 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
5
RSA No.4745 of 2012
court recorded its own cogent findings in para 13 and 14 of the impugned judgement and the same read as under :-
“ Needless to say, jurisdiction of the civil court in the order passed in departmental enquiry is limited. Civil court cannot go into the merits of the departmental enquiry and cannot sit over the same as an appellate court. The civil court can invoke its jurisdiction only in the situation where rules are not properly followed or rules of natural justice are violated.
As already stated above, in this case the enquiry was conducted by DSP Ferozepur Jhirka. In the said enquiry, various witnesses on behalf of the department were examined. The delinquent official/appellant was also given opportunity to defend himself. Thereafter having heard him as well as the presenting official, he held the appellant guilty for his willful absence from duty on 25.9.2006. On the basis of the said enquiry, the competent authority had awarded punishment of stoppage of one future increment with permanent effect. Learned counsel for the appellant has miserably failed to satisfy the learned lower court or even to this court as there is any illegality or infirmity in the said orders. So, the finding given by the learned lower court on issue no.1 are well reasoned being based on facts and law. On appraisal of entire evidence, no other view is possible. Finding of facts recorded by learned trial court on the issue is affirmed.”
Sahni Greesh 2014.06.09 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
RSA No.4745 of 2012 6
It is the settled proposition of law that although the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred in the case of punishment awarded to an employee on the basis of departmental enquiry, yet it is equally true that whenever the civil court is called upon to interfere in the quantum of punishment, its jurisdiction would be very limited. In such a situation, the civil court will exercise its jurisdiction with circumspection and only when the awarded punishment has been found to be shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct. However, this court would hasten to add that no straight jacket formula can be and should be laid down in this regard, because each case is to be decided keeping in view its own peculiar fact situation. Further, given facts and circumstances of each case are to be examined, considered and appreciated first before applying any codified or judgemade law thereto. Sometimes, difference of one additional fact or circumstance can make the world of difference. So far as the present case is concerned, the punishment awarded has not been found to be disproportionate to the proved misconduct and the learned courts below rightly non suited the appellant.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on the record of the case, in either of the judgements passed by the learned courts below. He also failed to put into service any substantive argument, so as to convince this court to take a different view than the one taken by the learned courts below. Further, no question of law, much less substantial question of law has been found involved in the present case, which is sine qua non for interference at the hands of this court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. Thus, the impugned judgements and decrees deserve to be upheld for this reason, as well.
Sahni Greesh 2014.06.09 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
RSA No.4745 of 2012
7
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this court is of the considered view that present appeal is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, instant appeal stands dismissed, however, with no
order as to costs.
4.3.2014 GS
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
Sahni Greesh 2014.06.09 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Whether disproportionate punishment awarded in a departmental enquiry justifies civil court interference under Section 100 CPC?
Whether the civil court can reassess the merits of a departmental enquiry or only intervene on violations of natural justice?
Does the Second Appeal disclose a substantial question of law requisite for interference under Section 100 CPC?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shyam Sunder
State of Haryana
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
