GURDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff appellant, a Driver employed with Punjab Roadways, is in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 5.5.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh whereby appeal filed by the respondents/defendants was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 8.1.2013 passed by learned trial Court, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, was set aside. Plaintiff, as noticed above, is employed with Punjab Roadways. On 22.10.2001, bus number PB-12-A-8333 being driven by him struck against a Tata Sumo No. HR-2E-0231 near Bus Stand, Ghurram, Distt. Ropar. In the said collision all the passengers and driver of the said Tata Sumo suffered multiple injuries and some of them succumbed to their injuries. Legal heirs of deceased persons filed claim petitions before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Learned MACT awarded compensation to the claimants. With regard to rash and negligent driving, the plaintiff was proceeded departmentally and a charge sheet was served upon him. After considering the reply filed by plaintiff, a regular departmental enquiry was initiated in which plaintiff was held guilty. On the basis of the enquiry report a show cause notice dated 12.2.2008 was served upon the plaintiff to which he filed reply. The punishing authority, after considering the reply submitted by the plaintiff passed order dated 9.4.2008/23.4.2008 whereby punishment of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. Plaintiff preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 26.2.2010/8.3.2010. It is in these circumstances that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the orders dated 9.4.2008/23.4.2008 and 26.2.2010/8.3.2010 are illegal, arbitrary and against the rules and regulations. A further relief of mandatory injunction was sought for directing the respondents/defendants to release all the monetary benefits withheld in pursuance of the aforesaid orders.

(2.) The primary ground taken by the plaintiff in his suit was that the Enquiry Officer held him guilty solely on the basis of the award passed by the learned MACT and as such it was a case of no evidence.

(3.) On the other hand the defendants/respondents took the stand that a valid charge sheet was served upon plaintiff, full opportunity was granted to the plaintiff to defend him and after following due procedure punishment was imposed.