Pritam Chand Vs Pb State through Collector

Th e present appeal is preferred ag a inst the judgment and decree d a ted 21.08.2001 pas s ed by the learned District Jud g e, Gurdaspur, whereby the ap p eal filed by the res p ondent – State against the jud g ment and decree dated 19.01.1 9 99 passed by the l e arned Additional Civil Judge ( Sr. Division), Batala was acce p ted and the suit file d by the appellant was dismisse d .

¶16

BRIEF FACTS

¶17

Th e brief facts of the case are t h at the appellant was workin g as Conductor in th e respondent – Department. Th e enquiry was conducted against the appellant, whic h culminated into Order No.4730-33/Steno/GM dated 19.07.1 9 96 by which the p a y of the appellant was reduced to minimum of time scale of pay for a period of fiv e years forfeiting all his arrear s during which he remained u n der suspension, over and above the subsistence allo w ance already paid to him.

¶18

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.03.28 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

RSA-4711-2001 (O&M)

¶20

- 2-

¶21

He filed civil suit challenging the order dated 19.07.1996 which w as decreed in his favour by Additional Civil Ju d ge (Sr. Division), Batala, vid e its judgment and d e cree dated 19.01.1999.

¶22

Th e respondent/State of Punjab fil e d appeal challenging the judg m ent and decree dat e d 19.01.1999 passed by the A d ditional Civil Judge (Sr. Divisi o n), Batala, which w as allowed by the learned D istrict Judge, Gurdaspur, vide its judgment and d e cree dated 21.08.2001.

¶23

He n ce the present appeal.

¶24

SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

¶25

Le a rned counsel for the appella n t contends that the learned F irst Appellate Cour t has totally ignored the conten t ion of the appellant that punis h ing authority passe d the impugned order dated 1 9.07.1996 without applicatio n of mind.

¶26

Pe r contra, learned State counsel a rgues on the lines of the judg m ent and decreed pa s sed by the learned First Appella t e Court.

¶27

I h ave heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the w h ole record of this c a se.

¶28

Th e civil suit was filed by the ap p ellant challenging the order d a ted 19.07.1996, w h ereby the pay of the appellant was reduced to minimum of t i me scale of pay fo r a period of five years forfeiting all his arrears during whic h he remained under suspension, over and above the subsistence allowance already p aid to him inter al i a on the ground that charge-s h eet was not served with open a nd judicious mind and he was not supplied the relevant documents forming the b a sis of charge-sheet . His further ground to challe n ge was that he was not allowe d to TRIPTI SAINIinspect the record and that the reply to the cha r ge-sheet submitted by him was not 2025.03.28 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

RSA-4711-2001 (O&M) - 3-

¶30

considered.

¶31

A perusal of the written statem e nt filed by the respondent-S t ate shows that char g e-sheet was served upon the a p pellant, all the relevant docum e nts were supplied to him and reply to cha r ge-sheet was considered to be unsatisfactory. The appellant had cross-exa m ined the witnesses during enq u iry and after givin g him proper show cause not i ce and considering the reply, the enquiry report w as submitted, which was tho r ough in itself. It has been rig h tly observed by th e learned First Appellate Cou r t that in para-12 of the judg m ent passed by the l earned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Batala, it has been specifically stat e d that reply was on page 103 o f the enquiry file as Ex.P/1 and t hat there was an e ndorsement in green ink on t hat reply made by the punis h ing authority to the effect that reply was found to b e unsatisfactory and the appel l ant was directed to appear for personal hearing. E v en in the letter regarding pers o nal hearing it was e ndorsed that the appellant was heard in person and the reply w as considered and t he personal hearing was also gi v en to the appellant. 11. A p erusal of the record shows t h at notice of personal hearing w as given to the ap p ellant in which two sentences w ere proposed; one for his prop o sed dismissal and s e cond for forfeiture of pay an d allowances during the suspen s ion period.

¶32

A p erusal of the record further s h ows that reply to the show c a use notice was file d by the appellant on 08.05.1996 and the same was found to be unsatisfactory v ide noting of punishing authori t y dated 09.05.1996. He was ca l led for personal he a ring for 02.07.1996. His state m ent on the notice was recorded a nd then the order w as made that he had been hea r d in person and his reply had been TRIPTI SAINIconsidered and taking lenient view, the order w as passed reducing his pay to the 2025.03.28 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

RSA-4711-2001 (O&M) - 4-

¶34

minimum pay s cale for the period of 05 yea r s and forfeiture of the suspen s ion allowance. Th e refore, the contention of the a p pellant cannot be accepted that the impugned orde r dated 19.07.1996 was passed w ithout any application of mind. 13. It i s apparent from the record that proper enquiry was conducted a nd there is no doc u ment on record to show that the opportunity of being heard was not granted to the a p pellant. It is only after consid e ring the reply and after hearing the appellant to wh om the opportunity of pers o nal hearing was also given, the impugned orde r dated 19.07.1996 was passed. 14. In v iew of the above, I do not fin d any infirmity in the judgment a nd decree dated 21.08.2001 passed by the learned D istrict Judge, Gurdaspur, wher e by the appeal of t he respondent – State was a c cepted and the suit filed by the appellant was d i smissed.