dated 22.12.1 9 94, written by defendant N o .2 - General Manager, Pu n jab Roadways, Fer o zepur (Appellant No.2) to S h . Kuldeep Singh Gosal, Gen e ral Manager, Cha n digarh Transport Undertaking (CTU), as well as letter No.1 4 12 dated NIL wri t ten by Sh. Kuldeep Singh G osal, General Manager, CT U to defendant No.2 - General Manager, Punjab R o adways, Ferozepur, in respons e to memo No. 905 7 /ECC dated 24.05.1996, the e n quiry file was lost in transit w h ile lying in custo d y of postal authorities and t h erefore, the appellants could not produce the o r der dated 20.11.1985. Meani n g thereby that the record of the appellants itsel f was not traceable. 13. Fu r ther, the undisputed fact is that the appellants themselves state d so that case of the respondent was sent to the then General Manager, who had pa s sed order dated 20. 1 1.1985 for seeking clarification. Therefore, apparently order d a ted 20.11.1985 stat e d penalty of withholding of t h ree annual increments simplic i tor. More so, as pe r service record also the entry m ade is inflicting of punishmen t of three annual in c rements. Since, service book o f any employee is the record w h ich shows the entries regarding salary, increment, payment, punishment, etc., of the employee whic h is filled by the office itself, the r efore, the same cannot be igno r ed. 14. Fu r ther, the appellants were n o t able to prove, as to whe t her punishment of p enalty of withholding of three annual increments with cumula t ive effect was imp o sed vide order dated 20.11.19 8 5. Since it is the admitted cas e of the appellants t h at they sent order dated 20.11. 1 985 for clarification. Further e n try in the service b o ok also states that the punish m ent of three annual increments w as imposed and t h e record of the appellant was lost, therefore, I do not find a ny infirmity in th e judgment and decree dated 0 8.09.2000 passed by the lear n ed
