STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. SHRI PREMJIT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two Regular Second Appeal i.e. Regular Second Appeal Nos. 3472 and 3583 of 1985.

(2.) It is routine now to observe that in the RSA filed by the State and pending before this Court, no substantial question of law is ever formulated. This is so despite the fact that in some of the cases, time was afforded to the State to formulate the question of law. This is also one such case where again no substantial question of law is formulated. Though this appeal filed by the State is liable to be dismissed on this short ground yet that course is not adopted, as in the connected appeal filed by the employee conductor one question of law is formulated. Besides, the violation of the procedural law to impose the major penalty would be another substantial question of law, which may arise in this case, in addition to what was formulated as a substantial question of law by the employee, which reads as under:-

(3.) Through the suit filed, Premjit, who was working as Conductor in Punjab Roadways, Batala, District Gurdaspur, challenged 13 different orders of punishment. 12 orders out of these were those where 3/2/1 increments were ordered to be stopped with cumulative effect whereas one order was where 5 increments were stopped without any cumulative effect. The details of these orders with the punishment as awarded are as under:-