Dismissed

P.S.E.B. Bhatinda v. Jai Gopal

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Feb 2023RSA/946/1989

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal, the Punjab State Electricity Board challenged a declaration that the respondent's removal was illegal. The court held that since the charge-sheet was for minor penalty only, removal was unsustainable, dismissing the appeal as lacking merit. No substantial question of law arose in this regular second appeal.

What did the court decide?

The regular second appeal is dismissed; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

P.S.E.B. Bhatinda Vs Jai Gopal — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

201

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

RSA-946-1989 (O&M) Reserved on : 30.01.2023 Date of Decision : 14.02.2023

¶4

Punjab State Electricity Board and Another ....Appellants

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

Jai Gopal ....Respondent

¶7

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

¶8

Present : Mr. R.L. Sharma, Advocate, Advocate for the appellants.

¶9

Mr. M.S. Dalal, Advocate for the respondent.

¶10

ALKA SARIN, J.

¶11

The present appeal has been preferred by the defendantappellants aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.09.1988 passed by the lower Appellate Court.

¶12

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiffrespondent joined service at Fazilka in the Tubewell Sub Division of Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) in 1967. In 1970, he was transferred to Bathinda. Thereafter in 1974 he was transferred to Mansa. However, he went on leave without sanction and did not join his duty for 8 years. On 21.07.1984 a civil suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent which was decided on 06.05.1986 and a decree of declaration was passed that he continues to be in service of the defendants therein. The plaintiff-respondent

¶13

YOGESH SHARMA 2023.02.14 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

¶14

was given a posting order on 12.06.1986 but was also served a charge-sheet. The plaintiff-respondent filed a reply to the charge-sheet. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed who gave his report against the plaintiffrespondent. On the basis of the report, order terminating the services of the plaintiff-respondent was passed. The plaintiff-respondent filed the present suit for declaration impugning the order bearing No.121/86 dated 08.10.1986. Vide judgment and decree dated 02.11.1987 the suit was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was prepared by the plaintiffrespondent. The lower Appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffrespondent and passed a decree of declaration that the impugned order is illegal and void and that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to the arrears of pay etc. subject to the imposition of minor penalty as envisaged by Regulation 5(i to iv) of the PSEB Employees (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1971. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the defendant-appellants.

¶15

Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants would contend that the only ground on which the appeal has been allowed is that the charge-sheet issued to the plaintiff-respondent was issued under Regulation 10 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1971 for imposing a minor penalty, however, a major penalty has been inflicted on the plaintiff-respondent of removal from service. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants would further contend that the said point was neither raised in the suit nor in the grounds of appeal and hence the said submission could not have been considered and accepted by the lower Appellate Court.

¶16

YOGESH SHARMA 2023.02.14 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

¶17

Per contra , learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has contended that the plaintiff-respondent, after the judgement and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court, continued in service and has since retired. It is further the contention that being a legal point, the same could have been raised at any stage.

¶18

Heard.

¶19

The charge-sheet (Ex.P4) reveals that the plaintiff-respondent was charge-sheeted under Regulation 10 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1971 for imposing a minor penalty. Once the plaintiff-respondent was not charge-sheeted for imposition of a major penalty, he could not have been removed from service. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellants has not been able to convince this Court that such an action could have been resorted to that the plaintiffrespondent could have been removed from service when the charge-sheet was only issued for imposition of a minor penalty.

¶20

In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal. The regular second appeal, which is wholly devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

¶21

Dismissed.

¶22

( ALKA SARIN ) 14.02.2023 JUDGE Yogesh Sharma

¶23

NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

¶24

YOGESH SHARMA 2023.02.14 10:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. Chandigarh

P.S.E.B. Bhatinda v. Jai Gopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.E.B. Bhatinda v. Jai Gopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darshan Singh Vs Dayal Singh and Ors.

(O&M) Surjit Kaur Vs Rajinder Kaur

Rajinder Kumar Vs Vijay Kumar and Another

Ajaib Singh Vs Gurdit Singh and Others

(O&M)Sanjay and Ors. Vs Karan Singh and Anr.

Sukhwinder Singh Vs Dev Singh