State of Punjab vs Gurmej Singh

Ranjit Singh, J.—The State has filed this appeal against the concurrent finding of the fact recorded by the trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court. Gurmej Singh, respondent-plaintiff was working as Conductor with Punjab Roadways, Patti. He was placed under suspension without holding any preliminary enquiry. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff says that indefinite charge sheet was served upon him and the charges therein were based on false and frivolous reports. The respondent-plaintiff would also term the charge sheet to be defective and inquired into in a manner presupposing his guilt.

Having been terminated on 13.11.1981, the appellant filed a suit on number of grounds including that he was not allowed assistance of his co-employee. The plea was that the order of termination accordingly was illegal.

The appellant-State contested the suit by raising objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit. On merits, it was conceded that the respondent-plaintiff was placed under suspension on receipt of report from the Inspector and subsequently was served a charge sheet. The appellant would thus pray that the impugned order is legal and valid. Following issues were framed by the trial Court:

Whether the impugned order dated 13.11.81 and 16.9.82 are illegal and void, if so its effect? OPP

Relief.

The suit was decreed primarily on the ground that the statement of no passenger was recorded and by making reference to the law laid down in State of Haryana v. Mohan Singh 1985 (2) SLR 116. It was said to be a case of no evidence. This view was upheld taken by the First Appellate Court.

The learned State counsel would, however, draw my attention to State of Haryana and Another Vs. Rattan Singh, , where this view has not found the approval of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. In this case, it has been viewed that when evidence of Inspector is recorded, it would be some evidence and thus such a case cannot be termed as a case of no evidence. It has also been viewed that the evidence of passenger even if not recorded would not mean that it is case of no evidence. The view taken by the First Appellate Court on the basis of Mohan Singh''s case (supra) thus cannot be sustained.

However, it has also been noticed by the Courts that it is not only a case of no evidence but a case where respondent-plaintiff had produced an evidence in his defence to rebut the case of the prosecution. Thus, this case strictly would not be covered by the ratio of law that non-examination of passenger would be a case of no evidence. It was a case where there was evidence produced by the respondent-plaintiff and the First Appellate Court specifically held that there was no reason to disbelief the same. Accordingly, it is a case of appreciation of evidence, which would not call for any interference at this belated stage.

The Regular Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed.