State of Punjab vs Harjeet Singh

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is defendant''s second appeal against whom suit for declaration was dismissed by the trial court but has been decreed in appeal.

The plaintiff Harjeet Singh filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 25th March 1980 terminating his services was illegal, un-constitutional etc. It was alleged that on 25th May, 1979 he was charge-sheeted for committing fraud of Rs. 7.20 from the Government revenue because on 15th April, 1979 while conducting Bus No. 6076 he had received the aforesaid amount from eight passengers travelling between Jullundur Cantt to Nangal as bus fare and had not issued the tickets. The said fraud was detected by Sohan Lal UT1 on checking of the bus. After holding a domestic enquiry these allegations were found to be proved and after issuing show-cause notice his services were terminated vide order dated 25th March, 1980. According to the plaintiff, since he was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself and that the rules of natural justice were infringed the said order was illegal and unconstitutional. In the written statement these allegations were controverted. It was pleaded that the order terminating the services was valid and legal and there was no infringement of any rule of natural justice, as alleged. The trial court found that there was no reason to hold the impugned order of termination as invalid in any way. All the contentions raised before the trial court by the plaintiff were negatived. Consequently, plaintiff''s suit was dismissed.

In appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar came to the conclusion that in the present case the normal procedure of departmental enquiry had been departed from as there was no presenting officer before the enquiry officer on behalf of the department for any assistance nor any assistance was provided to the plaintiff. The Enquiry Officer departed from his role of Enquiry Officer and instead by putting questions to the Departmental witnesses as well as to the plaintiff elucidated and brought certain material on the record which could be used against the plaintiff. Thus according to the learned Appellate Court, the Enquiry Officer misconducted his position and therefore, the enquiry was vitiated. It was further found that the show cause notice issued was a stereo type and certain extraneous matters had been introduced at the time of terminating his services. On these basis the termination order was held to be illegal and invalid. Consequently plaintiff''s suit was decreed. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant State of Punjab has filed the second appeal in this Court.

The Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the whole approach of the lower appellate court was wrong and illegal. The ground on which the order of termination has been held to be illegal were never pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff and therefore the lower appellate court has gone beyond the pleadings. Moreover, the findings of the trial court were never considered wherein it has been held on the strength of the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported in The State of Haryana and Ors. v. Shri Ram Chancier 1976(2) SLR 690 that passengers need not be examined and the Enquiry Officer is justified in acting on the evidence of the checker against the conductor and there is no bar against the reception of hearsay evidence by domestic tribunals. Thus the Learned Counsel argued that the whole approach of the appellate court being illegal and mis-conceived, the findings arrived at are vitiated. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that in the plaint the impugned order of termination was alleged to be illegal and unconstitutional and, therefore, the lower appellate court rightly, found that it was illegal on the ground that the Enquiry Officer misconducted himself by putting questions to the witnesses. It was also contended that the reply to the show-cause notice sent by the plaintiff under postal certificate was never considered and since the passengers were never examined during the domestic enquiry, no finding could be given against the plaintiff. In support of this contention he referred to State of Haryana v. Mohan Singh 1985(1) SLJ 597.

After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I find force in the contention raised on behalf of the defendant-appellants. In the plaint the plaintiff has not challenged his order of termination on the ground that the Enquiry Officer misconducted himself as he cross examined the witnesses. If no such objection was taken in the plaint, the plaintiff could not be allowed to challenge the order of termination on that basis. It is well settled that the scope to challenge the enquiry proceedings in civil suit is very limited. Unless a specific plea is taken as to challenge the enquiry and the basis on which the termination order is said to be illegal the plaintiff cannot be allowed to challenge the same on the basis of some judgment because in that situation the defendant State is taken by surprise. It is to be emphasized that in the civil suit the court would only go into the illegality which is specifically, pleaded. The submission that the termination order is illegal and unconstitutional and violates the principles of natural justice is too vague and under that cover the plaintiff cannot be allowed to challenge the order to be illegal on any ground without pleading specifically, as to the particular illegality if any. In the present case the grounds which the lower court appellate has found the enquiry to be vitiated were not pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff and therefore the finding arrived at is vitiated. The trial court has discussed all the points raised before it and has negatived the same. It is unfortunate that the lower appellate court did not advert to the findings of the trial court at all. In these circumstances the whole approach of the lower appellate court being illegal and mis-conceived, the findings are liable to be set aside.

The contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that the passengers from whom the plaintiff allegedly took the money and did not issue tickets have not been examined, has no force in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court referred to above.

It could not be disputed that the plaintiff has not only to allege the particular illegality irregularity in enquiry proceedings but he is further required to prove that he was prejudiced on account of such irregularity, if any. In the present case no allegation has been made by the plaintiff in the plaint.

In view of the above discussion this appeal succeeds. The judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court are set aside and that of the lower Court dismissing the plaintiff suit are restored with costs.