Jagdev Singh vs Punjab State Electricity Board and Others

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.

Having been non-suited, in the suit for declaration by both the learned courts below, by recording their concurrent findings of facts, unsuccessful plaintiff has approached this Court, by way of instant regular second appeal. Briefly put, facts of the case as recorded by the learned appellate court are that plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that order bearing No. 175 dated 13.08.2001 passed by defendant No. 2, whereby one annual grade increment of the plaintiff was stopped with cumulative effect and period of suspension was treated as the leave of the kind due was illegal, null and void. Having been served in the suit, defendants appeared and filed their written statement raising more than one preliminary submissions. Averments taken by the plaintiffs were denied. After completion of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

Whether order bearing No. 175 dated 13.08.2001, Endst. No. 2900/13 issued by defendant No. 2 and further order bearing No. 150 dated 18.07.2003 Endst No. 115223/115240 dated 18.07.2003 are illegal, void, arbitrary, against rules and not binding upon the plaintiff? OPP

If issue No. 1 is proved, whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration for the reason mentioned in the plaint? OPP

Whether plaintiff is entitled for all arrears of increments and full pay for the suspension period along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum? OPP

Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP

Whether plaintiff has infringed the regulations No. 7 & and 8 of employees conduct regulation, 1971 as alleged? OPD

Relief.

To substantiate their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove his case. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed with costs, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 27.10.2010. Feeling aggrieved plaintiff filed appeal which was also dismissed by the learned first appellate court, vide its impugned judgment and decree dated 25.03.2011. Hence, the second appeal.

Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the punishment order passed against the appellant was illegal on the basis of it. Plaintiff did not violate any rule or regulation including regulation 7 and 8 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees Conduct Regulations, 1971. He further submits that plaintiff has approached the Court with cogent and convincing evidence which was sufficient to decree his suit. However, since the learned Courts below have misdirected themselves, while passing their respective impugned judgments, the same were not sustainable in law. He prays for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees, by allowing the present appeal.

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the fact situation of the present case, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (''C.P.C. for short''), because no question of law much less substantial question of law has been found involved in the instant case. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

It is a matter of record and not in dispute that while serving with the respondent-Board on the post of Upper Division Clerk, plaintiff became Chairman of the Agitation Committee which was known as ''Parbhavit Kisan Sangrias Committee''. Members of this Agitation Committee were the farmers whose land was acquired, by the respondent-Board for the purpose of setting up Guru Hargobind Thermal Plant, Lehra Mohabbat, District Bathinda. It is also not in dispute that since the plaintiff-appellant was already in service with the respondent-Board, neither the plaintiff-appellant himself nor any of his family member was falling in the category of oustees, for the purpose of getting employment in the respondent-Board. In this view of the matter, conduct of the appellant in becoming Chairman of the Agitation Committee against the respondent-Board, while in service with the respondent-Board was totally uncalled for on his part and said action of the plaintiff-appellant would amount to misconduct.

It is also not in dispute that being Chairman of the abovesaid Agitation Committee, plaintiff-appellant has been agitating the claim of oustees with the authorities of the respondent-Board. It appears that while performing his duty as Chairman of the Agitation Committee, plaintiff would not be in a position to perform his official duty. Technicality apart, plaintiff misconducted himself violating Regulations 7 and 8 of the Punjab State Electricity Board Employees Conduct Regulations, 1971 (''regulations of 1971'' for short). So far as the order of punishment awarded to the appellant is concerned, the same has been passed after following the basic principle of natural justice. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that no prejudice was caused to the appellant. The punishment awarded was not disproportionate to the misconduct proved against him.

Before arriving at a judicious conclusion, the learned first appellate court has rightly re-appreciated the true facts as well as legal aspects of the matter. The cogent findings recorded by the learned District Judge, in para 17 to 19 of the impugned judgment, read as under:-

"17. So far as the plea of the appellant that there was no reason to prove charge No. 2 by the Inquiry Officer when charge No. 1 was not proved by the Inquiry Officer, it is suffice to say that such type of pleas cannot be considered by the Civil Court as an Appellate court. As discussed above, the Civil Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court for considering the legality and validity of the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer. It is worthwhile to mention here that it is not the case of the appellant that the inquiry was not conducted by the department. When a regular inquiry was conducted by the department under rules and proper procedure has been adopted by the Inquiry Officer, the Civil Court cannot interfere therein. It was incumbent upon the appellant to establish on the record that no regular or proper inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer or that the Inquiry Officer was not competent to hold the inquiry or he was in any way prejudice to the interest of the plaintiff. Even if letter No. 7/2000 dated 04.07.2000 Ex. P. 1 written by effected Kisans Sangarsh Committee, G.H.T.P., Lehra Mohabbat was not annexed with the charge-sheet and it was only mentioned in the list of documents attached with the charge-sheet, the same does not further the case of the appellant. He has failed to convince the Court as to what prejudice has been occasioned to him, if the department did not do so.

It is the plea of the appellant that the appellant-plaintiff did not violate the regulations No. 7 and 8 of PSEB Employees Conduct Regulations, 1971 in any manner. However, in this regard, it is suffice to say that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer/competent authority/punishing authority cannot be looked into by the Civil Court, especially when proper procedure has been followed in the matter by the department.

Thus, it is found that the view of the Court of first instance to the effect that - withholding of increment of pay with or without cumulative effect as a minor penalty and, therefore, the finding of the learned trial Court on that score is liable to be reversed. Still this fact does not further the case of the appellant-plaintiff in any manner."

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality apparent on the record of the case, in either of the impugned judgments. He also failed to put into service any substantive argument, so as to convince this Court to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Courts below. Further, no question of law much less substantial question of law has been found involved in the present case, which is sine qua non for interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C. Thus, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below deserve to be upheld, for this reason as well.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present appeal is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out Consequently, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the both the learned Courts below are upheld. Resultantly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of. No costs.