State of Haryana Vs Sl Punia

Th e present appeal is preferred ag a inst the judgment and decree d a ted 19.01.2001 pas s ed by the learned Additional D istrict Judge, Hisar, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent against the jud g ment and decree dated 31.07.2 0 00 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), H isar, was allowed.

¶14

BRIEF FACTS

¶15

Th e brief facts of the present case a re that the respondent was wor k ing as Executive E n gineer in Rori Division, Sirsa f rom 01.01.1982 to 31.03.1982 and again from 01 . 04.1982 to 19.05.1986. The r eafter, the respondent worke d as Executive Engi n eer, Construction Division No. 4 , Fatehabad. When the respon d ent was posted as Executive Engineer Rori Divi s ion, Sirsa, he was charge-she e ted under Rule 8 o f the Punjab Civil Services (Pu n ishment and Appeal) Rules, 1 9 87, vide memo dat e d 09.12.1991. He submitted re p ly to the same and thereafter, a fter giving him opp o rtunity of personal hearing, vi d e order dated 12.09.1994, reco v ery of Rs.51,265.4 0 paise and stoppage of two in c rements without cumulative e ff ect TRIPTI SAINIwas ordered. H e filed civil suit challenging order dated 12.09.1994, which w as 2025.05.07 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

RSA-2827-2001 (O&M)

¶17

- 2-

¶18

dismissed by t h e learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divi s ion), Hisar, vide its judgment and decree dated 31.07.2000.

¶19

Th e reafter, respondent preferred a n appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additi o nal District Judge, Hisar, vi d e its judgment and decree d a ted 19.01.2001.

¶20

He n ce the present appeal by the St a te of Haryana.

¶21

SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

¶22

Le a rned counsel for the appellant s contends that the First Appel l ate Court has rever s ed the findings of the learned T rial Court without appreciating the evidence on rec o rd. He further contends that th e First Appellate Court has wro n gly held that impu g ned order is non-speaking. T h erefore, he prays that the pre s ent appeal be allow e d.

¶23

Pe r contra, learned counsel for th e respondent argues on the line s of the judgment a n d decree dated 19.01.2001 and c ontends that the appeal filed by the respondent has rightly been allowed by the l e arned First Appellate Court after taking into co n sideration the evidence on rec o rd. He further contends that the punishment of s toppage of two increments wit h cumulative effect and recover y of Rs.51,265.40 paisa also amounts to double j eopardy. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present appeal 7. I h a ve heard the learned counsel f o r the parties and perused the w h ole record of this c a se.

¶24

Th i s Court, vide order dated 11.1 1 .2002, while admitting the pre s ent appeal stayed t h e operation of the judgment an d decree dated 19.01.2001 passe d by the learned Fir s t Appellate Court.

¶25

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.07 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

RSA-2827-2001 (O&M)

¶27

- 3-

¶28

A p erusal of the record further sh o ws that charge-sheet under Ru l e 8 of Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and App e al) Rules, 1987 was issued to the respondent and he filed reply to the same. F urther, personal hearing was a lso given to him.

¶29

A p erusal of the record further s h ows that an enquiry of vigil a nce department was conducted on the complaint a n d there were 11 allegations aga i nst the respondent a nd after due consideration at a ll the levels, it was decided by the appellant to iss u e charge-sheet to the responde n t. Before serving the charge-s h eet respondent was afforded an opportunity to exp l ain his case. Further, it is admi t ted fact and matter of record that after giving due o pportunity of being heard (by w ay of filing reply a s well as personal hearing), the i m pugned order was passed. 11. So far as order of punishment of recovery of Rs.51,265.40 pais a is concerned, the same is imposed since the los s was caused to the appellant-S t ate due to negligen c e of the respondent. In fact th e respondent did not allow Gur d eep Singh, Canal P a twari, to join his duties from 13.07.1983 to 08.05.1986 and he f i led a civil suit at Si r sa, which was decreed in his fa v our and the appellant was dire c ted by the Court to pay him salary for this period (13.07.1983 to 08.05.1986) to the tune of Rs.51,2 6 5.40 and it is matter of record that the appellants had to bear t his loss because of t he conduct of the respondent. 12. A d mittedly, in the present case t h e punishment was imposed after following due p rocedure as laid down under t he Civil Services Rules. Fur t her because of the c onduct of the respondent, it is e v ident on record that vide judg m ent and decree dat e d 26.04.1986, learned Additional District Judge, Sirsa, held the appellants as w ell as respondent liable to pa y the amount of salary to Gur d eep Singh, Canal Patwari. And since it was the d ecision of the learned Additi o nal

¶30

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.07 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶31

RSA-2827-2001 (O&M) - 4-

¶32

District Judge, S irsa, vide which respondent w a s held liable to pay the amoun t of Rs.51,265.40 p a isa and the respondent never challenged the said judgment a nd decree, therefore this Court finds that recovery of loss of Rs.51,265.40 paisa f r om the respondent would not amount to double j eopardy, therefore, it requires no interference by t his Court.

¶33

Le a rned First Appellate Court h a s totally ignored all the admi t ted facts and evide n ce on record and further treate d the punishment of recovery of l oss of Rs.51,265.4 0 paisa and stoppage of two incr e ments without cumulative effect as double jeopard y , which is not acceptable to this Court. 14. Fu r ther the learned First Appellat e Court while allowing the ap p eal filed by the re s pondent gave liberty to Punish i ng Authority to decide the m a tter afresh, in accor d ance with law, without appreci a ting the fact that the punishme n t of recovery of R s.51,265.40 paisa and stoppage of two increments wit h out cumulative effe c t, was imposed by giving full o pportunity of being heard i.e. after considering the reply as well as after giving per s onal hearing to the respondent.

¶34

In view of the above, the presen t appeal is allowed. Judgment a nd decree dated 1 9 .01.2001 passed by the learne d First Appellate Court is set a s ide and judgment a nd decree dated 31.07.2000 p a ssed by the learned Trial Cou r t is upheld.

¶35

De c ree sheet be drawn.

¶36

Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶37

April 25, 2025. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) tripti JUDGE

¶38

W h ether speaking/non-speaking : Speak i ng W h ether reportable : Yes

¶39

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.05.07 13:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

State of Haryana v. Sl Punia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. Sl Punia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punjab Poultry Development Corpn. Ltd. Vs Bhag Singh

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Minakshi and Ors.

Satya Devi & Ors. Vs Subhash Singh & Ors.

New India Ass. Comp. Ltd. Vs Sunita Devi and Ors.

Babu Narain Jha and Ors. Vs Nirwar Singh and Ors.

Mrs Vijay Kaushik and Others Vs Kailash Kundalik Mahajan and Others