HARINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unsuccessful plaintiff Harinder Singh has filed the present Regular Second Appeal, which is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.1.1986 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Amritsar, who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 10.5.1984 passed by the Court of Sub-Judge, 1st Class, Amritsar, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff - appellant for declaration as prayed for.

(2.) Plaintiff Harjinder Singh filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the order dated 29.3.1982 passed by respondent No.2, i.e., General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Amritsar, terminating his services was illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice. It was pleaded by the plaintiff-appellant that he was serving as conductor in the Punjab Roadways, Amritsar, when the order dated 29.3.1982 was passed by respondent No.2 by virtue of which was his services were terminated and that the charge-sheet which was served upon him was defective, vague and illegal; the documents relied upon by the Department were not allegedly supplied to him in spite of his verbal and written requests; the inquiry allegedly conducted by the Inquiry Officer was defective as the Inquiry Officer was subordinate to the General Manager, there was no proper delegation of authority to the Inquiry Officer; that the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer is teemed with irregularities, illegalities, and improprieties which vitiated the entire proceedings, and that the inquiry was based on no evidence rather the findings were based on suppositions, presumptions and extraneous matters were taken into consideration while returning the findings against the plaintiff. The matter had arisen out of the checking of the bus and the instructions of the Director, State Transport, regarding the procedure for checking of the bus were not complied with. It is further alleged that the punishing authority prejudged the guilt of the appellant in the charge-sheet and the inquiry was biased. The show cause notice issued at the second stage proposing the punishment was defective, vague, indefinite and against the rules. Moreover the order terminating the services of the appellant was cryptic and several extraneous matters were taken into consideration while passing the impunged order.

(3.) The suit was contested by the Department, which took preliminary objections such as that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction as the matter in dispute could be decided by the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondents admitted the employment of the appellant, but denied other allegations and asserted that the charge-sheet served upon the appellant was specific and all the relevant documents had been supplied to him along with the charge-sheet. According to the defendants- respondents, full opportunity was given to the appellant. The inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer was fair and according to the rules. There was no bias against the plaintiff, as alleged, and the impunged order had been passed after taking into consideration all the relevant material on the inquiry file.