THE PUNJAB STATE Vs. KISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a regular second appeal filed against the judgment and degree passed by the learned Additional. District Judge, Amritsar, dated 31.3.1975 whereby he has reversed the judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Amritsar, who had dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff seeking declaration that order of the General Manager Punjab Roadways Amritsar dated 25.6.1971 terminating the services of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) as a conductor in the Punjab Roadways, was illegal, unconstitutional and violative of the Principles of Rules and natural justice.

(2.) I had the advantage to go through both the judgments passed by the Courts below and I am in agreement with judgments passed by the first appellate Court holding that the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer whereof a copy was not provided to the Plaintiff is violative of Rule 9(4) (i)(a) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1970. The Enquiry Officer, who conducted the enquiry in the matter had not charge sheeted the Plaintiff correctly for he did not give a finding against the charge for the past behaviour of the Plaintiff and the same was violative of the provisions of Rule 8(5)(a) of the said Rules. The Enquiry Officer on closing of the evidence had not examined the Plaintiff and questioned him about the circumstances which appeared against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling him to raise some defence or to explain these circumstances as was required by Rule 8.18 of the said Rules. The first appellate Court has found that the enquiry was violative of the provisions of Rule; 9(4)(i)(b) and the punishment given to the Plaintiff was illegal, unconstitutional and violative of the Rules and Principles of natural justice.

(3.) No legal or factual defect has been found with the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court and Mr. Grewal in no manner could repose any confidence in me that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court was in any manner illegal or was faulty, or that the evidence scanned and discussed by it was not correct. I do not find any reason to take a different view than the view taken by the first Appellate Court. Also in the circumstances of the case that the Plaintiff had already been reinstated and is working with the department for the last 16 years, a great injustice would be caused if at the fag end of his career the Plaintiff is ousted from service. Having the natural justice, equity and good conscience in mind the judgment passed by the first appellant Court is correct on all fours and does not suffer from any illegality and the same is upheld.