(1.) The appellant before his Court had filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction against the State of Haryana. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court vide judgment dated 31.3.1994. The Trial Court held after considering the evidence led by respective party that the principles of natural justice were violated as well as the respondent had no jurisdiction to convert the proceedings which were initiated under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 and without issuing of show-cause notice in accordance with rules applicable to the petitioner and to impose penalty under Rule 8 of the said Rules. Upholding these two objections of the plaintiff, the suit was decreed. The State of Haryana preferred an appeal against this judgment and decree which was disturbed by the Additional District Judge, Rewari. The learned Appellate Court held that the mentioning of Rule 7 in the first para of show-cause notice is a clear misdescription which shall not convert the notice into one drafted and issued under the provision of Rule 7. The Court further held that it can safely be concluded that the notice was issued under Rule 8 along with it was mistyped as Rule 7 because of some clerical mistake. This was not the stand of the defendant in the written statement and further the learned Ist Appellate Court has erred in not considering the well settled law as laid down in Ram Kumar Goel v. State of Haryana,1991 5 SLR 263. Learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab has fairly conceded that there is no other view of the court to the contrary, as laid down in Ram Kumar Goel's case .
(2.) In view of the above discussion, the judgment of Ist Appellate Court is set aside and the judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed. However, it will not prevent the respondent in this appeal from taking any action against the appellant if they are entitled to, in accordance with law.
(3.) The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.