JEET RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiff's appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code'), challenging judgment and decree dated 12.4.2004 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra dismissing his suit while accepting the appeal of the respondents. The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for declaration with consequential benefits which was decreed in his favour by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurukshetra holding that order dated 8.8.1998 withholding his two increments with cumulative effect was illegal and void. However, the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge was reversed by the learned Additional District Judge vide his impugned judgment and decree. The plaintiff-appellant feeling aggrieved has approached this Court by filing the instant appeal under Section 100 of the Code.

(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant has been working with the respondent-State on the post of Constable. He was posted in the Police Line, Kurukshetra as Assistant of Clothing Head Constable. A charge-sheet was issued to him on the complaint made by one Basheshar Nath, a retiree alleging misappropriation of funds. After preliminary enquiry conducted against the plaintiff-appellant, complainant UGC, Basheshar Nath disclosed that plaintiff-appellant had taken Rs. 668/- from him illegally. In the preliminary enquiry prima facie, findings were returned against the plaintiff-appellant as per the order of the Inquiry Officer dated 28.5.1997. However, on the regular departmental enquiry held against plaintiff-appellant, the Inquiry Officer recorded the finding that the charge against the plaintiff-appellant was not proved and exonerated him.

(3.) The Punishing Authority recorded its disagreement with the Inquiry Officer and the details with regard to disagreement were incorporated in the show- cause notice dated 30.7.1998 (Ex. P-4). It was pointed out that Basheshar Nath had specifically alleged that the plaintiff-appellant had taken Rs. 668/- from the retiree on account of clothing recovery which he failed to deposit. He deposited only Rs. 180/- on 18.4.1995 and again Rs. 179.60 on 12.7.1995 after a gap of three months.