DR. K.K. SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main argument in this Regular Second Appeal on behalf of the appellant is that the judgment of the first Appellate Court is contrary to the well-settled principles of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad versus B. Kamnakar, 1993 3 SC 1.

(2.) In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the appellant it is necessary to refer to certain facts necessary for proper determination of the question. The plaintiff (Dr. K.K. Sharma) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order imposing penalty upon him dated 25.7.1990 passed by the Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, and order dated 7.9.1990 is illegal, wrong, ultra vires, against rules and is liable to be set aside. The plaintiff was selected by the Punjab Public Service Commission on 25.2.1974. At the relevant time, the plaintiff was working as Senior Medical Officer and was forced to proceed on leave. His application for long leave was f ejected. The plaintiff submitted his joining report on 21.5.1987. He was'served with the charge-sheet that he remained absent unauthorisedly and without leave and sanction of the proper Authority. To this charge-sheet a detailed explanation was filed by the plaintiff on 16.2.1988. Departmental enquiry was held against the plaintiff and ultimately the plaintiff was dismissed from service with immediate effect as per order dated 25.7.1990 & published in the gazette notification on 7.9.1990. The plaintiff alleged that enquiry was of a cryptic nature. There was violation of rules, principles of natural justice and copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the plaintiff. He further submitted that personal hearing was not granted to him by any of the Authorities before imposing the punishment or otherwise. The suit was contested by the defendants, who alleged that the plaintiff was placed under suspension, charge- sheet was served upon him, enquiry was held in accordance with rules and there has been no violation of any rules or regulations. On these facts, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

(3.) The main basis given by the learned trial Court was that the entire enquiry was vitiated because subsistence allowance was not paid to the plaintiff and there was violation of principles of natural justice. Against this judgment and decree dated 20.8.93, an appeal was preferred. The learned first Appellate Court accepted the appeal; set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court vide its judgment dated 11.9.96, which has been assailed in the present appeal.