IQBAL SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE THROUGH COLLECTOR AMRITSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been filed by plaintiff-Iqbal Singh against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide which the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of this case are that the plaintiff (appellant herein) was working as a Driver in Punjab Roadways at Tarn Taran. During the course of his employment, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and vide orders dated 17.3.1983 and 11.2.1985 his one and three annual increments respectively were stopped with cumulative effect. The case of the appellant is that neither he received any of these impugned orders nor he was intimated about the penalty imposed upon him Till the filing of the suit. The appellant did not know about the background of the order dated 17.3.1983, however, the order dated 11.2.1985 was passed after placing him under suspension without calling for any explanation. The charge-sheet served upon him was wrong and defective. It is his case that before issuing the charge-sheet, no open and judicial mind was applied. The allegations contained in charge-sheet were false and frivolous. The appellant submitted his reply but the same was not taken into consideration. It is submitted that subsequent departmental inquiry was totally in contravention of relevant rules and the principles of natural justice. He was not given any opportunity to defend his case properly. The conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry Officer were contrary to the facts and circumstances, unwarranted and not justified. There was not an iota of evidence and inquiry report was based on conjectures and surmises. It is alleged that a cyclostyled show cause notice dated 27.12.1984 was served upon him without considering the merits of the case and without application of mind. The appellant submitted his reply but no further intimation was given to him and the impugned order dated 11.2.1985 was passed. On these grounds, the appellant filed civil suit for declaration that these two orders were illegal and ultra vires etc. and null and void and not binding on the appellant and he is entitled to all the arrears of increments with other benefits admissible from time to time.

(3.) The suit of the plaintiff was contested by the defendant, respondent by raising preliminary objections and asserted that these orders were passed validly and according to law.