STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. GOBIND LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent-plaintiff claims that he was falsely implicated in a criminal case and was placed under suspension on 05.11.1976. He, however, was acquitted of an offence and was reinstated in service. The departmental proceedings were then started on the same charge on a charge sheet, dated 13.10.1976. Executive Engineer was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The punishing authority, thereafter, issued show cause notice to the respondentplaintiff proposing two punishments i.e. withholding of two increment with future effect and recovery on Rs. 2266/-. Ultimately, however, the punishment of recovery of Rs. 2266/- coupled with censure was awarded to respondent-plaintiff. Respondent-plaintiff, thereafter, sought review of the order when vide order dated 11.04.1980, the amount of recovery was reduced to Rs. 1236/-. The censure, however, was kept intact. Orders were issued to the effect that respondent-plaintiff will not be paid more than the subsistence allowance during the period he had remained under suspension.

(2.) Respondent-plaintiff filed an appeal against the same, which was dismissed on 17.07.1980. Yet another appeal was preferred, which was rejected on 14.01.1983. Both the orders were alleged to be non-speaking orders. Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit to challenge these orders being illegal, void and arbitrary.

(3.) Defendant contested the suit, objecting to the jurisdiction of the Court at Giddarbaha to try the same on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It is stated that the order was passed by Superintendent Engineer, Faridkot Circle and delivered to the respondent-plaintiff at Abohar. Objection about the suit being time barred was also raised. It is pointed out that the respondent- plaintiff was suspended on 05.11.1976 and that he was convicted for an offence under Section 409 IPC. After acquittal from the criminal charge, the departmental inquiry was conducted and so the impugned order was passed.