State of Punjab vs Niranjan Singh

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.

Present appeal, at the instance of defendant, is directed against concurrent findings recorded by both the learned courts below, whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondent, was decreed. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the learned first appellate court in paras 2 and 3 of the impugned judgement, are that the plaintiff was working as Conductor in the department of Transport, Punjab and was posted at Tarn Taran. He was charge sheeted. He filed replies to the charge sheets but his replies were not considered by the authorities. Enquiry officer was appointed who submitted his report and the General Manager thereafter passed the impugned order which the plaintiff challenged on the grounds given in the plaint. After serving notice u/s. 80 C.P.C., the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that various orders whereby his increments were stopped, passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways are illegal, ultra vires, wrong, wanton, capricious, without jurisdiction, against the principles of natural justice, fair play, equity terms and conditions of the employment, provisions of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 against the procedure, precedent and rules, null and void and that the plaintiff is thus entitled to all benefits available from time to time.

The suit was contested by the defendant who filed written statement and raised preliminary objection that the suit is barred by time and that the suit is not maintainable in the present form.

On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff was working in the Punjab Roadways but denied the other allegations stating that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with rules of the department and there is no violation of the rules as alleged and that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

On completion of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues :--

"1. Whether the suit is time barred ? OPD.

Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD

Whether the impugned orders are liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the plaint ? OPD."

In order to substantiate their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and going through the evidence brought on the record, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has duly proved his case. Accordingly, his suit was decreed, vide impugned judgement and decree dated 7.11.1989. Numerous punishment orders awarding major punishments stopping annual increments with cumulative effect and without conducting any regular departmental enquiry, were set aside. Feeling aggrieved, defendant filed its first appeal, which also came to be dismissed by the learned first appellate court, vide impugned judgement and decree dated 26.10.1990. Hence, this second appeal at the hands of defendant-State of Punjab.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff has failed to prove his case. He was indulging in unwarranted activities. He challenged as many as 15 punishment orders together, including the order dated 10.12.1976 whereas the suit was filed as late as on 18.7.1988, thus the suit was hopelessly time barred. However, since both the learned courts below misdirected themselves, while not appreciating the true facts of the case as well as the evidence available on record, impugned judgements and decrees were not sustainable in law. He prays for setting aside the impugned judgements and decrees, by allowing the present appeal.

Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that the defendant-appellant has violated the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill Vs. State of Punjab, , because the major punishments were awarded without conducting any departmental enquiry. To award major punishment without conducting the departmental enquiry was not permissible in law. The learned courts below have recorded concurrent findings and there was hardly any scope for interference at the hands of this court. He also refers to the punishment orders, which were passed in a mechanical manner on already printed proformas, which would show non application of mind on the part of competent authority passing the punishment order. He prays for dismissal of the appeal.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, instant one has not been found to be a fit case warranting interference at the hands of this court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (''CPC'' for short), for the following more than one reasons.

It is a matter of record and not in dispute that at more than one occasions, punishment orders were passed against the plaintiff-respondent, awarding him major punishments, stopping his annual increments with cumulative effect. It is also not in dispute that no departmental enquiry was conducted by the appellant, before passing the punishment orders against the respondent. Having said that, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that the appellant has glaringly violated the basic principles of natural justice and also the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gills''s case (supra). Thus, the impugned judgements deserve to be upheld.

So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, once punishment orders were the orders without jurisdiction, hence void ab-initio, period of limitation would not be attracted against the plaintiff for the reason that he would be having a continuous cause of action. The view taken by this court also finds support from the judgement of this court in State of Punjab v. Shri Premjit and another, 2010(3) S.C.T. 118 : 2010(5) SLR 385, CWP No. 1989 of 1993 (State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh and another) decided on 20.9.2013, RSA No. 1849 of 1989 (Gurcharan Singh, Conductor v. State of Punjab) decided on 10.4.2013 and RSA No. 2119 of 1988 (Jai Parkash v. State of Haryana) decided on 18.3.2013. In this view of the matter, it can be safely concluded that the learned courts below committed no error of law, while passing the impugned judgements and the same deserve to be upheld, for this reason also.

A bare combined reading of both the impugned judgments would show that the learned courts below rightly appreciated the true facts of the case as well as the evidence available on record, in correct perspective, before recording their cogent findings. Each and every aspect of the matter was discussed in detail and rightly appreciated. The findings recorded by both the learned courts below are based on sound reasons and the impugned judgements 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 present appeal is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.

Resultantly, instant appeal stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.