PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SATPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Punjab State Electricity Board in present appeal filed against Satpal Singh respondent has challenged the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court which was affirmed by the first appellate Court vide which suit brought about by plaintiff Satpal Singh seeking declaration to the effect that the show cause notice dated 24.7.1986 and order terminating his services, dated 30.9.1986 was illegal, and decreed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case reveal that Sat Pal Singh (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) joined the Punjab State Electricity Board as Meter Reader with effect from 27.10.1978 on regular basis. He applied for five days leave from 25.7.1983 which was sanctioned. However, after the expiry of the leave he did not report and was thus issued letters on 5.8.1983, 6.8.1983 and 5.9.1983 to assume his duties which he was neglecting being on unauthorised leave. All the notices sent to him were returned back with the report that he had gone abroad. The plaintiff was charge-sheeted on 26.3.1984. When there was no response even to the charge-sheet issued to him on 16.3.1985, a public notice was given in four widely circulated newspaper and when that also did not yield any result, on 12.9.1985 an Enquiry Officer was appointed to go into the matter and find out as to whether the plaintiff was on unauthorised leave. The Enquiry officer issued letter to the plaintiff on 14.3.1986 to appear before him, which too was returned with the endorsement that he had gone abroad. Fresh notice was issued on 24.7.1986 and yet another notice was issued on 30.9.1986. The plaintiff did not respond to any of the notices as referred to above and thereafter taking into account the long absence of the plaintiff without even intimating the office, leaving side getting the leave sanctioned, his services were terminated on September 30,1986. It is this order as referred to above, which was basically challenged in the civil suit with the result as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment.

(3.) The learned trial Court on the evidence led before it came to the conclusion that it was admitted by the witnesses appearing on behalf of the appellant that no communication was sent to the plaintiff on any other address. It was also found as per admission on DW-1 that the house of the plaintiff was situated in village Rahon but the witness could not state as to since when the plaintiff was residing at the said address. A finding was given on the strength of the aforesaid evidence that the appellant did not make any effort to serve notice at the address of the plaintiff at Rahon. The trial Court invalidated the order of termination on yet another ground i.e. the first notice was issued by Shri S.K. Sandhu, S.D.O., Punjab State Electricity Board, whereas the Superintending Engineer, Nawanshahar was the appointing authority of the plaintiff. The matter was agitated in appeal and the first appellate court being not impressed with any of the ground taken by the trial court did not comment anything on such ground yet upheld the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court on the solitary ground that procedure as contained in Rules 8 and 9 of the Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1970, was not followed by the Appointing Authority. Earlier, on the question of fact, a firm finding was recorded by the appellate court that plaintiff was not prevented to join his duties due to illness, rather he did not join the duties intentionally. It was also observed that on assumption that the plaintiff has gone abroad even though this fact was not proved by any other evidence. It was also held that the appellant got published proclamation in the newspaper and the plaintiff did not join the duties nor he contested show-cause notice issued by the appellant.