PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. NARESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit of the respondent has been decreed and he has been allowed the following relief:

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel, I am of the view that the grievance made by the appellant is justified. Respondent was issued posting orders on 17.11.1976 and he was asked to report in the office of Superintending Engineer, Ferozepur. Against this order the respondent made representation on 7.12.1976. His repre- sentation was rejected on 7.1.1977 and accordingly he was asked to join at the place of posting vide Exhibit D-4, i.e., the place for which order dated 17.11.1976 had already been issued. Respondent did not join and that led to serving of a charge-sheet on him. He challenged this action by filing a civil suit on 8.8.1977 and obtained an interim injunction whereby the Board was directed not to implement its order dated 17.11.1976. However, ad-interim injunction was vacated on 24.4.1978. Respondent then filed an appeal which was rejected. Therefore the Board kept quiet and the respondent too did not join at the place of posting. Respondent moved yet another representation addressed to the Secretary of the Board thereby requesting for his posting at the Head Office, but the said representation was rejected. It was on 22.4.1993 when an order was passed appointing an Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry against the petitioner. This led to filing of a civil suit by the respondent out of which the present appeal has arisen. In the suit, issuance of charge-sheet in the year 1977 and appointment of Enquiry Officer to hold enquiry against the respondent has been challenged on the ground that the action on the part of the Board is belated and the enquiry cannot proceed against him. Besides this, respondent also claimed arrears of salary and other consequential benefits. The trial Court decreed the suit and in appeal the decree of the trial Court has been affirmed by the first appellate Court. As already noticed, the limited prayer of the Board is to the extent that respondent is not entitled to arrears of salary. As the narration of facts in the earlier part of the judgment has shown that at no stage the Board had prevented the respondent from joining at the place of posting rather it was the respondent himself who had been approaching the Board and also the Court with the prayer that he be posted at the Head Office. After the stay was vacated, the respondent did not report for duty in the office of Superintending Engineer, Ferozepur. It would have been different matter if the respondent had gone to the office of Superintending Engineer, Ferozepur, but was not allowed to join the duty as per order dated 17.11.1976. However, this was not done and therefore, respondent cannot be allowed to take advantage of this own wrong.

(3.) Accordingly, the judgment and decrees of the Courts below are modified to the extent that the injunction whereby the Board has been directed to pay arrears of salary shall stand set aside. As regard the claim of the respondent to give him the benefit of continuity of service and consequent promotion, the matter shall be dealt with by the Board by passing a speaking order and the respondent, if so advised, can also file/make representation in this regard. As regards joining on the post, counsel for the Board has no objection if the respondent reports to the office of Chief Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, South, Patiala where he would be given a fresh order of posting. Respondent, if so chooses may appear before Chief Engineer, Punjab State Electricity Board, South, Patiala on 1.9.1995 on 10.30 A.M. in this regard.