PUNJAB STATE Vs. JASBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondent was employed as Conductor with the Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur. He was on duty on bus No. 5762 running between Amritsar and Bada Johar. The bus was checked by the inspecting staff on that date and it had been detected that 23 passengers were travelling without tickets. The matter was reported to the concerned quarters and the plaintiff- respondent was placed under suspension and thereafter was served with a charge-sheet by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur. The reply furnished by the plaintiff-respondent was considered, which was found unsatisfactory, as a sequel thereto, regular departmental inquiry was ordered which was conducted and that the plaintiff-respondent was held guilty by the Inquiry Officer. A show cause notice was served upon the plaintiff-respondent by the competent punishing authority and thereafter the order dated December 5, 1977, was passed vide which the services of the plaintiff-respondent stood terminated. The statutory appeal was filed which was rejected by the statutory authority vide order dated 16.1.1981.

(2.) The plaintiff being dissatisfied with the aforestated impugned orders filed civil suit and maintained various grounds for holding that the impugned orders are illegal, ultra vires, capricious and without jurisdiction, as such, the same deserve to be declared null and void and that the plaintiff-respondent continues to be in service of the State and that he shall be entitled to the emoluments and all consequential benefits admissible to the plaintiff- respondent. Inter alia it has been averred that the Inquiry Officer did not record the statement of the plaintiff and that he was not given the opportunity to cross examine the prosecution evidence. Resultantly, a grave prejudice has been caused to the rights of the plaintiff-respondent in conducting of the inquiry by the Inquiry Officer, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Apart from this, it has been averred that the punishing authority did not apply its mind before passing the impugned order of termination.

(3.) The suit has been resisted by the defendant-appellant and the averments contained in the plaint have been categorically refuted. It has been averred that the plaintiff-respondent had been given full opportunity to defend himself and that he had been given the opportunity to question the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and that he had given the opportunity to produce evidence for and on his behalf, inter alia, it has been averred that the civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to try the suit and that the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 CPC. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the issues had been framed and the respective parties led documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their pleas and to prove the issues, the onus of which has been casted upon them.