STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's Second Appeal against whom suit for declaration was dismissed by the trial Court but has been decreed in appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff Harjeet Singh filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 25th March, 1980 terminating his services was illegal, unconstitutional etc. It was alleged that on 25th May, 1979 he was charge-sheeted for committing fraud of Rs. 7.20 from the Government Revenue because on 15th April, 1979 while conducting Bus No. 6076 he had received the aforesaid amount from eight passengers travelling between Jullundur Cantt to Nangal as bus fare and had not issued the tickets. The said fraud was detected by Sohan UTI on checking of the bus. After holding a domestic enquiry these allegations were found to be proved and after issuing show-cause notice his services were terminated vide order dated 25th March, 1980. According to the plaintiff, since he was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself and that the rules of natural justice were infringed, the said order was illegal and unconstitutional. In the written statement these allegations were controverted. It was pleaded that the order terminating the services was valid and legal and there was no infringement of any rule of natural justice, as alleged. The trial Court found that there was no reason to hold the impugned order of termination as invalid in any way. All the contentions raised before the trial Court by the plaintiff were negatived. Consequently, plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

(3.) In appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar came to the conclusion that in the present case the normal procedure of departmental enquiry had been departed from as there was no presenting officer before the enquiry officer on behalf of the department for any assistance nor any assistance was provided to the plaintiff. The enquiry officer departed from his role of Enquiry Officer and instead of putting questions to the departmental witnesses as well as to the plaintiff elucidated and brought certain material on the record which could be used against the plaintiff. Thus according to the learned Appellate Court, the Enquiry Officer misconducted his position and, therefore, the enquiry was vitiated. It was further found that the show-cause notice issued was a stereo type and certain extraneous matters had been introduced at the time of terminating his services. On these basis the termination order was held to be illegal and invalid. Consequently plaintiff's suit was decreed. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendant State of Punjab has filed the second appeal in this Court.