DHARAMPAL ARORA Vs. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE granted.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the final order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 13/2/2004 passed in Regular Second Appeal No.2332 of 1987. The appellant was working as an Assistant Revenue Accountant with the Punjab State Electricity Board. He was suspended vide order dated 26/8/1974. He was charge sheeted vide Memo dated 24/9/1974. Thereupon, he was reinstated in service vide order dated 25/8/1975. The appellant was due to cross the efficiency bar w.e.f. 4/10/1974 but he was allowed to cross efficiency bar w.e.f. 1/4/1976 vide order dated 10/10/1980 passed by the respondent-Board. The period from 4/9/1974 to 30/9/1975 was treated as a non-duty period. An inquiry was held and an order was passed on 16/3/1984 whereby one annual grade increment of the appellant was stopped with future effect. The appellant filed a Civil Suit in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Patiala on 28/4/1984. The suit was filed for declaration and other incidental reliefs. The learned Trial Judge by judgment dated 12/3/1985 dismissed the suit filed by the appellant-plaintiff. Against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the appellant filed the first appeal before the Additional District Judge. Before the Additional District Judge, the appellant had specifically argued that the claim of the appellant was that he was deemed to have crossed the efficiency bar w.e.f. 4/10/1974 and that he was entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period from 4/9/1974 to 30/9/1975. A further submission was made that the order dated 16/3/1984 was illegal because not only that the order was not speaking order but also that no show cause notice was served upon the appellant by the punishing authority after the report of the Inquiry Officer was submitted and further that the copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer was also not supplied to the appellant. The Additional District Judge categorically gave a finding that:

(3.) AFTER hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for the respective parties, the High Court observed on question of law No.l as under :