Dismissed¶38

Ram Kumar v. Hy.St.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2026RSA/3638/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Punjab & Haryana High Court, RSA-3638-1999 (O&M), pronounced 15.05.2026 (Sudeepti Sharma J.) — dismissed. Second appeal against District Judge, Jind's judgment and decree dated 20.04.1999 partly allowing the State's appeal; penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect under Rule 7, Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 upheld; natural justice held followed (inquiry report Ex.P-8 and show cause notice served and replied to; no denial of cross-examination); departmental appeal held valid on admission of 70 passengers (18 in excess); Rs.108/- deducted from security amount per S.T.C. order dated 24.04.1991.

What did the court decide?

None; the regular second appeal was dismissed, the judgment and decree dated 20.04.1999 of the District Judge, Jind was upheld, and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Ram Kumar Vs Hy.St. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the regular second appeal was dismissed, the judgment and decree dated 20.04.1999 of the District Judge, Jind was upheld, and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the principles of natural justice were followed before imposition of the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect — specifically, whether the appellant was granted an opportunity of personal hearing and supplied a copy of the inquiry report before the punishment was imposed. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

Principles of natural justice were followed before passing the order of punishment.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The imposition of punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is legal, since it was passed after holding inquiry and following the principles of natural justice.

¶32

Key takeaways

The appeal filed by the appellant against the punishment order is also valid, since it was the admitted case of the appellant before the appellate authority that he was carrying 70 passengers, i.e., 18 passengers in excess, in the bus at the time it was checked.ratio¶36
There is no infirmity in the judgment and decree dated 20.04.1999 passed by the District Judge, Jind, and the same is upheld.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Ram Kumar, a Conductor in Haryana Roadways, Jind, filed RSA-3638-1999 (O&M) against the judgment and decree dated 20.04.1999 of the District Judge, Jind, which partly allowed the State's appeal and thereby restored the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect imposed under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987; the trial court had set the penalty aside on the ground that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted and no copy of the inquiry report was supplied. The High Court (Sudeepti Sharma J.) held that the inquiry report (Ex.P-8) and show cause notice were duly sent to and replied to by the appellant, whose own exhibits placed those copies before the trial court, and that nothing on record showed he was barred from cross-examining witnesses; natural justice was therefore followed, the punishment was legal, and his departmental appeal was also valid in view of his admission before the appellate authority that he was carrying 70 passengers (18 in excess). Upholding the District Judge's judgment dated 20.04.1999, the Court dismissed the second appeal; the deduction of Rs.108/- from the appellant's security amount vide S.T.C. order dated 24.04.1991 was noted.

¶1

RSA-3638-1999 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

RSA-3638-1999 (O&M)

RAM KUMAR

......Appellant

Vs.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Reserved on : 12.05.2026 Pronounced on: 15.05.2026 Uploaded on: 27.05.2026

¶11

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES

¶12

YES

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

¶14

Present: Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate Mr. Anuj Mahla, Advocate Mr. Jaswant Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

¶15

Mr. Harish Nain, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana

¶16

¶17

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

¶18

The present regular second appeal is preferred against judgment and decree dated 20.04.1999 passed by District Judge, Jind whereby, appeal filed by the respondent against judgment and decree dated 29.08.1996 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jind was partly allowed.

¶19

Brief facts of the case as per pleadings in the civil suit are that appellant filed civil suit for declaration challenging order dated 31.01.1991 and 20.03.1990 passed by the respondents. As per pleadings in the civil suit, appellant was Conductor in Haryana Roadways, Jind. He was chargesheeted under Rule 7 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 on the ground that he was carrying one passenger without ticket in his bus. On

¶20

earlier occasion also chargesheet under rule 7 of Haryana Civil Services

¶21

MOHD AYUB 2026.05.27 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶22

RSA-3638-1999 (O&M)

¶23

-2-

¶24

(Punishment and Appeal) rules 1987 was issued on the ground that he took unauthorized passengers from village Machrauli to Siwah on 22.06.1989 and consequently Government suffered loss of Rs.108/-. Inquiry was conducted. The inquiry report was not against the appellant still punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was granted to him. Further his pay and allowances of the suspension period from 17.07.1989 to 27.07.1989 were restricted to allowances already paid vide order dated 20.03.1990. He filed appeal against the same to S.T.C., Haryana, Chandigarh. Appeal filed by him was dismissed vide order dated 24.04.1991. He filed civil suit. Civil suit filed by him was decreed in his favor vide judgment and decree dated 29.08.1996 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jind. Respondents-State filed appeal against the same which was partly allowed vide judgment and decree dated 20.04.1999 passed by learned District Judge, Jind. Hence, the present regular second appeal.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that learned First Appellate Court has wrongly reversed well-reasoned judgment and decree dated 29.08.1996 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jind. Both the Courts failed to appreciate the very fact that before imposing punishment, principles of natural justices were not followed. He, therefore, prays that the present regular second appeal be allowed.

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents contends that learned First Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and partly allowed the appeal. He, therefore, prays that the present regular second appeal be dismissed.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance.

¶28

MOHD AYUB 2026.05.27 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶29

RSA-3638-1999 (O&M)

¶30

-3-

¶31

Admittedly chargesheet was issued under Rule 7 of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 i.e. for major punishment. Order dated 20.03.1990 imposing penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was set aside by learned trial court on the ground that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the appellant nor any copy of inquiry report was supplied to him before imposing the punishment. And so far as the amount of Rs.108/- is concerned the same was deducted by respondents from the security amount vide order dated 24.04.1991 of S.T.C. Haryana Chandigarh (appellate authority).

¶32

A perusal of the record shows that inquiry report (Ex.P-8) was duly sent to the appellant. Further the appellant neither disputed the receipt of show cause notice nor had he pointed out that at any point of time prior to filing of civil suit that copy of inquiry report referred to in the show cause notice was not received by him. Ex.P-12 shows that appellant had not only received the show cause notice but he also replied to the same which was not found to be satisfactory and consequently, penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. Copy of inquiry report Ex.P-8 and show cause notice was placed before the trial court by the appellant himself which shows that he was supplied with the show cause notice as well as copy of inquiry report. Even there is nothing on record to show that appellant was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. Perusal of record shows that principles of natural justice were followed before passing the order of punishment. Therefore, the imposition of punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is legal since the same was passed after holding inquiry and following the principles of natural justice. So far as the appeal filed by the appellant against the punishment order is concerned the

¶33

MOHD AYUB 2026.05.27 18:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶34

RSA-3638-1999 (O&M)

¶35

-4-

¶36

same is also valid since it is admitted case of appellant before appellate authority that he was carrying 70 passengers i.e. 18 passengers in excess in the bus at the time it was checked. And he could not have added more than this if an opportunity of personal hearing would have been afforded to him.

¶37