VISHWA NATH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court whereby relying upon a judgment of this Court reported as Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana, 1980(1) SLR 355, wherein it was held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit where challenge was made to the order of termination after conclusion of disciplinary proceedings as the remedy of the plaintiff-appellant was to raise industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The plaintiff was appointed as a Conductor in Punjab Roadways when his services were terminated vide order dated 2.2.1979 after conducting departmental inquiry in terms of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeals) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the rules). The plaintiff challenged the said order in a suit for declaration claiming that such order is illegal, null and void and unconstitutional with consequential relief that the plaintiff continues to be in service and entitled to all benefits of service including pay and allowances. One of the issues framed was "Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction ?" and other issues was whether the order dated 2.2.1979 is illegal as alleged?

(3.) The learned Trial Court decreed the suit holding that the inquiry was not held properly and stood vitiated due to examination of an extra witness on 18.8.1978 and that the report of the Inquiry Officer does not contain any reasoning or findings based on evidence. It was also held that the inquiry report nor the impugned order is a speaking order and therefore, bad and defective. In appeal, the findings of the learned Trial Court on issue No. 1 was set aside relying upon Banarsi Dass 's case (supra). However, in respect of issue No. 2 the first Appellate Court found that the order is not a speaking order and has been passed by the Inquiry Officer without applying mind and cannot be sustained but held that the Inquiry Officer has given his report after well considering the evidence and the documents produced on the file. Aggrieved against the said judgment the plaintiff is in second appeal.