Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Present: M r. Rajiv Atma, Sr. Advocate ass i sted by M r. Rajat Khanna, Mr. Vijay Prat a p Singh, Mr. Paramjit Singh, M r. Sumbhav Parmar, Advocates for the appellant.

¶12

M r. Animesh Sharma, Addl.A.G. P unjab

¶13

¶14

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

¶15

T h e present Regular Second App e al is directed against the judg m ent and decree dated 22.09.2007 passed by t h e learned Addl. District Ju d ge, Gurdaspur, w h ereby the appeal preferred by t h e respondent-State was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2002 p assed by the learned Civil J u dge (Junior Divisi o n), Gurdaspur was set aside. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

¶16

B r ief facts of the case as per c i vil suit are that the appellant was appointed as P CMS in health department o n 04/03/1976 on adhoc basis. His services were r egularized on 24/9/1976. Since then he is working diligently. V ide GAURAV ARORA2026.04.20 16:11order dated 28 / 06/1999, the services of the ap p ellant were terminated on the b asis I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

2

¶18

RSA-758-2008 (O&M)

¶19

of allegation of absence from duty and violating the instructions of the Government. T he enquiry was ordered to be c o nducted against him. The appe l lant challenged the dismissal order by filing civil s u it, which was decreed in his fa v our, vide judgment and decree dated 18.05.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurda s pur. The respondent-State filed appeal against the same, which was accepted, vide judgment and decree dated 2 2 .09.2007 passed by learned A ddl. District Judge, Gurdaspur. Hence the present a p peal. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

¶20

L e arned senior counsel appearin g for the appellant contends tha t the learned Addl. D istrict Judge, Gurdaspur has w rongly accepted the appeal file d by the responde n t-State without appreciating the evidence (oral as well as documentary) on record. He further contend s that well reasoned judgment and decree dated 1 8 .05.2002 passed by learned Ci v il Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurdaspur has been reversed by learned First Appellate C o urt. He, therefore, prays that the present Regul a r Second Appeal be allowed.

¶21

P e r contra, learned counsel for th e respondent-State contends tha t the First Appellat e Court has rightly accepted the appeal filed by the respondents and dismissed the c ivil suit filed by the appellant. H e, therefore, prays that the present Regular Secon d Appeal be dismissed.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel f o r the parties at length and h ave carefully perused the record with their able ass i stance. ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD

¶23

A perusal of the record reveals that admittedly, the appellant was appointed as PCMS on 04.03.1976. His servi c es were regularized on 24.09.1 9 76. Charge sheet dated 14.02.1991 was issue d against him for unauthoriz e dly GAURAV ARORAremaining absent from duty from 02.12.19 8 9 and not following govern m ent 2026.04.20 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

3

¶25

RSA-758-2008 (O&M)

¶26

instructions. H e filed reply dated 08.03.1991 t o the same stating therein that d u e to bad health, he applied for leave along with m e dical certificates of Civil Hos p ital. Thereafter, En q uiry officer namely Dr.Manmohan Kaur was appointed, vide o r der dated 08.06.1 9 91 (Ex D2). She submitted e n quiry report on 07.04.1994, w h ich was rejected b y the Government on 30.07.19 9 5 without any reason. The Enq u iry Report submit t ed by Dr. Manmohan Kaur dat e d 07.04.1994 was not accepted and de novo enqui r y was ordered.

¶27

A perusal of the record further s h ows that appellant had put in m ore than 23 years o f service. The appellant appea r ed in the witness box as PW1 and stated that he g ave reply to charge sheet and h i s reply was not considered. D W 1 in his cross exa m ination admitted that the ap p ellant replied to charge shee t . A perusal of the r ecord further shows that appell a nt in his evidence stated that n o list of witnesses w as given to him, which is fur t her affirmed by DW1 in his c r oss examination w ho stated that the name of w itnesses were not supplied to the appellant. DW 1 further stated that reply to cha r ge sheet was given by the appe l lant which was no t considered, since the appellan t did not appear before the Enq u iry Officer. DW1 also admitted in his cross exa m ination that appellant applied for leave which w a s accompanied by certificates f r om Doctors showing that his h e alth did not allow h im to join the duty. The cross e xamination of DW1 further shows that appellant c ould not join duty because of m edical reasons. A perusal of r e ply filed by the appellant also shows the same. He applied for leave on me d ical grounds but t h e same was rejected. In his ex a mination in chief, appellant st a ted that he applie d to enquiry officer for holdin g enquiry at Gurdaspur becaus e of health reasons but his request was not consid e red. DW1 in his cross examin a tion also admitted that the appellant applied fo r change of venue of Enquir y at GAURAV ARORAGurdaspur bu t his request was not conside r ed without any reasons. Ther e is 2026.04.20 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

4

¶29

RSA-758-2008 (O&M)

¶30

nothing to sho w that there is any complaint ag a inst the appellant or miscondu c t or negligence on t he part of the appellant during h is service period. The whole re c ord of this case s h ows that due to medical reas o ns, appellant could not join d uty. Further in the reply dated 08.03.1991 to sh o w cause notice, the appellant had specifically st a ted that because of health reas o ns, he could not join the duties nor he could appe a r before the Medical Board at G urdaspur and his absence from d uty was beyond h i s control. He further stated tha t he was right to join his dutie s by ignoring his h ealth also. A perusal of lette r dated 14.08.1996 written by Dr. Manmohan K a ur, Director Health Family W elfare Punjab, Chandigarh c um Enquiry Offic e r by Secretary to Punjab Gove r nment, Health and Family Welfare Department, P u njab stating therein regarding r eply submitted by the appellant and his asking for p ermission to join his duty and her observation that the decision to this effect is t o be taken at the Government l e vel only further proves the con d uct and intention o f the appellant to be bona fide .

¶31

A perusal of the impugned or d er of dismissal dated 07.07.1999 deciding alleg a tions of unauthorisedly remain i ng absent from duty on 02.12.1989 and non comp l iance of the directions issued b y the Government nowhere refe r red to reply filed b y the appellant and its consid e ration with respect to the me d ical condition of t h e appellant as well as his wil l ingness to join the duty. Mor e so, there is nothin g in order of dismissal dated 07.07.1999 regarding the request m ade by the appella n t to conduct the enquiry at G u rdaspur due to his health reas o ns. Further, the re q uest made by the appellant was genuine which could be consid e red by the respon d ent since he was working with the respondent for the last 23 y ear and due to hea l th reasons, he applied for leave which was also rejected.

¶32

T h e reasoning for not joining t h e enquiry was also due to h e alth GAURAV ARORAproblems and h e made request for holding en q uiry at Gurdaspur itself which was 2026.04.20 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

5

¶34

RSA-758-2008 (O&M)

¶35

not even cons i dered. In order of dismissal d a ted 07.07.1999 there is no whi s per regarding the same. Learned Addl. District Ju d ge, Gurdaspur did not consider and appreciate the e vidence on record, while holdi n g that it is not the appellant w h o is to choose the v enue of enquiry without appre c iating the fact of bad health/h e alth problem of th e appellant, which was support e d by the medical certificates. The learned First A ppellate Court ignored the f act that it is not the case of the respondent-St a te that the appellant willingly absented himself from duty, r a ther the whole rec o rd shows that because of me d ical reasons, he applied for le a ve, which was rejected. And the request to cha n ge the venue from Chandigar h to Gurdaspur for health reasons, was not even c o nsidered. Further, the learned F irst Appellate Cou r t ignored the evidence on rec o rd which proves bona fide rea s ons for remaining a bsent as well as not joining the enquiry by the appellant. 10. I n view of the foregoing d iscussion and reasons reco r ded hereinabove, T he judgment and decree date d 22.09.2007 passed by the lea r ned Addl. District J udge, Gurdaspur, is hereby set aside, and the judgment and de c ree dated 18.05.2002 passed by the learned Civil J udge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, is affirmed a n d civil suit filed by the ap p ellant is decreed in his favour. Accordingly, t h e present Regular Second App e al is allowed . 11. T h e date of birth of the appellan t is 15.05.1949, as per which h e is almost 77 yea r s of age as on date. He filed ci v il suit in the year 2000 which was decided in th e year 2002. The appeal filed b y the State against the same was decided in the y ear 2007. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present regular se c ond appeal in the year 2008 and since 2008, he is waiting for the decision in the present Regul a r Second Appeal. Meaning th e reby, he is waiting for the las t 18 years from th e date of filing the present app e al and for the last almost 26 years GAURAV ARORAfrom the date o f filing of civil suit. Therefore, justice demands that he should not 2026.04.20 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶36

6

¶37

RSA-758-2008 (O&M)

¶38

be forced by t h e respondent-State to file the e x ecution petition. Since the civil suit filed by the a ppellant is decreed in his fav o ur and his dismissal order d a ted 07.07.1999 is s et aside, therefore, the appella n t is entitled to retiral benefits. The respondent-St a te is directed to calculate the pensionary benefits by notio n ally fixing his pay as well as consequential bene fi ts. The amount so calculated s hall carry interest @ 7% per annum. This exercise shall be completed within a pe r iod of three month s from the date of passing of the judgment., 12. P a rties are left to bear their own c o sts. Decree sheet be prepared 13. P e nding applications if any also s t ands disposed of.

¶39

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) 18.04.2026 JUDGE Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasone d : Yes Whether reportable : Yes

¶40

GAURAV ARORA 2026.04.20 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Haryana and Others Vs Prem Sagar Since Deceased through His Lrs

Kuldip Singh Vs Jaswinder Kaur, the Secretary, Dept. of Home Affaor Chd.

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Sheela Devi & Ors.

Kanwar Singh Vs Vijay Kumar and Anr.

Rajwanti & Ors. Vs Sandeep Kumar & Ors.

Baljit Singh Vs Balwant Singh and Anr.