The High Court dismissed the second appeal. The appellant, dismissed from service after conviction, challenged the Additional District Judge's order upholding the dismissal. The High Court found no error in the lower appellate court's judgment and dismissed the appeal.
The second 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.
1
RSA No. 861 of 2013 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No. 861 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.2.2014
Nirmal Kumar@ Nirmal Singh
.....Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr. P.C.Suman, Advocate for the appellant.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.
Plaintiff is in appeal against the judgment of reversal
whereby the learned Additional District Jugde, Hoshiarpur allowed the appeal of the defendants-respondents, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff.
Facts first.
Plaintiff-appellant joined the defendant-respondent department as Patwari on 31.5.1983. Services of the plaintiffappellant came to be dismissed by the Collector, Hoshiarpur, vide Kumar Amit order dated 4.3.2005 on the ground that plaintiff received illegal 2014.05.02 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2
RSA No. 861 of 2013 (O&M)
gratification of `70/- from one Amar Singh. Plaintiff was arrested by Vigilance Bureau, Hoshiarpur. He was suspended by the Collector vide order dated 14.6.1988. Plaintiff was convicted by the learned Special Judge, Hoshiarpur vide judgment of conviction dated 2.8.1990. Appeal of the plaintiff also came to be dismissed by this Court. Plaintiff challenged his dismissal order with consequential service benefits.
Having been put to notice, defendants appeared and filed their written statement taking preliminary objections about maintainability of the suit, locus standi, cause of action and notice under Section 80 CPC. On merits, it was stated that once the plaintiff stood convicted and his appeal has been dismissed, competent authority was fully justified in passing the dismissal order dated 4.3.2005, which was passed after granting due opportunity of being heard. Denying other averments taken in the plaint, dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
On completion of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed the following issues:_
“1. Whether the order dated 4.3.2005 vide which the plaintiff was dismissed from service is illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside?OPP.
Kumar Amit 2014.05.02 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No. 861 of 2013 (O&M)
3
benefits?OPP
With a view 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, learned trial court came to the conclusion that plaintiff has proved his case. Consequently, suit was decreed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 30.4.2010. Feeling aggrieved, defendants filed their first appeal, which came to be allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.12.2012. Hence this appeal at the hands of the plaintiff.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submits that learned trial court rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiff but the learned lower appellate court fell in serious error of law, while passing the impugned judgment which was not sustainable in law. He further submits that learned lower appellate court failed to appreciate the true factual aspect of the matter as well as the Kumar Amit 2014.05.02 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
4
RSA No. 861 of 2013 (O&M)
evidence brought on record, in the correct perspective. He next contended that conviction alone was not sufficient to dismiss the plaintiff from service. He concluded by submitting that plaintiff was having a long service to his credit and that aspect of the matter was not considered by the punishing authority. Relying upon a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Kaur Singh and another Vs. Punjab Sate Electricity Board and others, 2007 (3) PLR 777 , learned counsel for the appellant prays for setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court, 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 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). The impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge has not been found suffering from any infirmity and the same deserves to be upheld. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
It is a matter of record that plaintiff-appellant was serving as Patwari in the respondent revenue department. Plaintiff was arrested by the Vigilance Bureau on 10.6.1988 on the allegation of receiving illegal gratification from one Amar Singh. Appellant faced criminal Kumar Amittrial and was convicted by the learned Special Judge, Hoshiarpur 2014.05.02 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No. 861 of 2013 (O&M)
5
vide judgment of conviction dated 2.8.1990. It is also not in dispute that appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by this Court. Thus, when the conviction of the plaintiff-appellant, under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 became final with dismissal of his appeal vide judgment dated 21.8.1993 passed by this Court, he was dismissed from service vide order of dismissal Ex.D1, passed by the competent authority. Under these circumstances, learned trial court committed serious error of law, while setting aside the order of dismissal. However, learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, rightly set aside the judgment of the learned trial court, by allowing the appeal of the respondent-department and the impugned judgment deserves to be upheld.
Before arriving at a judicious conclusion, learned Additional District Judge recorded cogent findings for reversing the findings recorded by the learned trial court on issues No. 1 to 3. In this regard, para 16 of the impugned judgment, reads as under:-
“ In the present case, it is admitted fact that plaintiff was arrested by Vigilance Bureau Hoshiarpur on the allegations that he received Rs. 70/- as illegal gratification from Amar Singh and he was convicted by learned special Judge Hoshiarpur vide judgment dated 2.8.90 Ex.PX on the file and appeal against the said order was filed by plaintiff before Hon'ble High Court which has also been dismissed vide order dated 29.8.03 Ex.Dx on the file. Thereafter, the plaintiff was dismissed from
Kumar Amit 2014.05.02 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No. 861 of 2013 (O&M)
6
service by the Collector Hoshiarpur vide order dated 4.3.05 Ex.D1 on the file. It has been clearly mentioned in the order Ex.D1 passed by the Collector, Hoshiarpur that Hon'ble court has dismissed the criminal appeal No. 2987-SB of 1990 on 29.8.2003 filed by plaintiff and plaintiff remained in jail for five months and 29 days. It has been clearly held in case 2009 (4) Service Cases Today 803 Surinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others (supra) that legal justification to dispense with the departmental enquiry is proper and accused deserves no sympathy on the ground that he is suffering from cancer. Through, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff has relied upon various citations of Hon'ble High Court but these citations are not applicable to the facts of the present case. As such it is held that Collector Hoshiarpur while passing the detailed order Ex.D1 has considered all the facts of the case of plaintiff and after that the plaintiff was dismissed from the service. So it is clear that order dated 4.3.2005 passed by the Collector is legal order and plaintiff is not entitled for relief of declaration nor he is entitled to relief of reinstatement in the service alongwith benefits. As such findings of learned lower court on issues No. 1,2 and 4 stands reversed.”
Kumar Amit 2014.05.02 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA No. 861 of 2013 (O&M)
7
So far as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, there is no dispute about the law laid down therein. However, a close perusal of the judgment would show that it was rendered on entirely different facts and is of no help to the appellant, being distinguishable on facts. It is the settled principle of law that peculiar facts of each case are to be examined, considered and appreciated first, before applying any codified or judgemade law thereto. Sometimes, difference of one circumstance or additional fact can make the world of difference, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Padmausundra Rao and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2002 (3) SCC 533.
In the present case, dismissal order passed by the competent authority was a speaking order. Factual background of the case, leading to the arrest, suspension, reinstatement, conviction of the appellant under the Prevention of Corruption Act and dismissal of his appeal by this Court, was duly considered before passing the order of dismissal by the Collector. Thus, there was no scope to hold that punishing authority acted in an arbitrary manner. Since the learned Additional District Judge has duly considered and appreciated the factual as well as legal aspect of the matter in the correct perspective, impugned judgment deserves to be upheld.
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 the impugned judgment passed by the learned lower appellate court. He also failed to put Kumar Amitinto service any substantive argument, so as to convince this Court 2014.05.02 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
8
RSA No. 861 of 2013 (O&M)
to take a different view than the one taken by the learned first appellate court. Further, no question of law muchless 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, in execrise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that learned Additional District Judge committed no error of law, while passing the impugned judgment and the same deserves to be upheld.
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 the present appeal is bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, the instant second appeal stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
11.2.2014 AK Sharma
Kumar Amit 2014.05.02 12:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Additional District Judge erred in law by allowing the departmental appeal and dismissing the suit for reinstatement and declaration?
Whether conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act without a subsequent departmental enquiry warrants dismissal from service?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kaur Singh and another Vs. Punjab Sate Electricity Board and othersDistinguished¶41
Kaur Singh and another Vs. Punjab Sate Electricity Board and others, 2007 (3) PLR 777
Surinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and othersExplained¶48
Surinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2009 (4) Service Cases Today 803
Padmausundra Rao and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and othersExplained¶56
Padmausundra Rao and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2002 (3) SCC 533 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nirmal Kumar
State of Punjab
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
