STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. BALDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. Both the courts below have given concurrent findings of fact based on proper appreciation of evidence.

(2.) The plaintiff in his suit, who was working as Driver in the Punjab Roadways, Amritsar-I, challenged the order dated 30.5.1990, by which the suspension allowance of the plaintiff was withheld and recovery of Rs.435/- was directed. The learned Courts below have found that notice, as required under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was duly served upon the defendants. The Courts below have also come to a conclusion that the impugned order was not passed by the competent Authority. A person who is performing the duties of the General Manager of Punjab Roadways in addition to the duties of the post on which he is regularly appointed, cannot be termed as duly appointed person to the post of General Manager. There is no dispute to the fact that the respondent was appointed by the General Manager. The appellants have not pleaded nor proved on record that the person who terminated the services of the respondent, was duly appointed as regular incumbent to the post of General Manager, Punjab Roadways. Thus, it is clear that the impugned order was not passed by the authority which had appointed the respondent to his post. At this stage, it may be appropriate to make reference to the judgment of this case in the case of Punjab State versus Hansa Singh R.S.A. No.2103 of 1995, decided on 30.4.19%. In the cited case, this question was discussed in detail and was answered against the appellant.

(3.) The Courts below have found as a matter of fact that there was violation of principles of natural justice and have passed well considered judgments.