STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. AJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent, Ajit Singh, while working as Conductor in Punjab Roadways, Tarn Taran, was placed under suspension and subsequently terminated from services on 01.08.1978. The charge against him for which the charge sheet under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') was served appears to be that he had committed some misconduct while performing his duties as Conductor. In the suit filed, the respondent pleaded that the allegations are frivolous and were made by checking party. He denied the same in its entirety. He also pleaded that the charge sheet was defective and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and was vague and indefinite. Further plea was that respondent-plaintiff was not supplied copies of the reports and other documents relied upon by the Department. Even competency of the Inquiry Officer was also challenged, stating that he was not competent to hold the inquiry. Plea also was that the respondent-plaintiff was not allowed to cross examine the prosecution witnesses and was also not allowed to produce defence witnesses. It is pleaded that the respondent-plaintiff wanted to examine himself as witness, which was not permitted. Despite this, the Inquiry Officer had partly exonerated the respondent-plaintiff and had held him guilty partly only. It is thus stated that the findings were perverse and were based on the surmises. Even the challenge was made to the show cause notice issued to the respondent, to which he had submitted the reply. Grievance also is made that the impugned order is not a speaking one and does not give out any reason as to why the services of the respondent was terminated.

(2.) The appellant contesting the suit and raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the civil Court to decide the civil suit. The other allegation made in the suit was also disputed and was also prayed that the order was illegal, void or without jurisdiction in any manner. Trial proceeded on following two issues:

(3.) The appellant did not press the second issue in regard to the jurisdiction of the civil Court and accordingly the same was dismissed as not pressed. The appellate Court confirmed this finding accordingly. However, issue No. 1 was decided against the respondent-plaintiff and his suit was dismissed. He had accordingly filed an appeal against the same before the First Appellate Court, where it was pleaded that while issuing show cause notice to the respondent-plaintiff for his removal from service, the necessary formalities were not complied with. Plea was that while issuing show cause notice, tentative view or the proposed punishment was not expressed. His past record was also taken into consideration for which he was given no opportunity to explain. It was pleaded that punishing authority had recorded the finding on basis of some charges, for which the respondent had been exonerated. While issuing show cause notice, the view expressed by the punishing, authority as contained in the show cause notice reads as under: