STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Vs. BALWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal, at the instance of defendants, is directed against the judgment of reversal passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, dismissing the suit for declaration, were set aside and suit of the plaintiff was decreed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as recorded by learned first appellate court in para 2 to 4 of the impugned judgment, are that the plaintiff was employed as a conductor and he was allotted conductor No.3067 and was drawing salary to the tune of Rs.650/- P.M. The plaintiff was on duty on 21.11.1981 and his bus was checked by the Inspectorate Staff and the staff falsely reported that the plaintiff did not issue tickets to ten passengers who boarded bus from Phillaur to Partap Pur and realised 55 paise each as fare from them. A passenger was travelling without ticket and he was charged ten times the fare by the plaintiff but the Inspectorate Staff made a wrong report against the plaintiff.

(3.) The plaintiff was removed from the service vide order dated 21.12.1981 passed by the General Manager without affording any opportunity to the plaintiff. The order of termination of the services of the plaintiff is illegal, contrary to rules of natural justice and is not sustainable in the eye of law because the order of termination has cast stigma on the character of the plaintiff as the said order was passed on the ground that the plaintiff embezzled a sum of Rs.5.50 charged as fare from the passengers. Aggrieved by the order of the General Manager, the plaintiff filed an appeal but the same was dismissed vide order dated 25.10.1982. One increment of the plaintiff was also stopped vide order dated 23.11.1981 and the plaintiff could not be punished twice for the same omission or wrongful act. The order of termination stood merged with the order of appellate authority dated 25.10.1982 and both the orders are null and void and against the provisions of Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules. The service of the plaintiff were terminated and juniors to the plaintiff were retained in service thereby violating the principle of first come last go. A valid notice was served upon the defendants before the institution of the suit, but the defendants did not take any action to reinstate the plaintiff in the service and hence the suit.