GURDISH SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 27.1.1986 passed by the then Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur vide which he accepted the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 1.12.1984 delivered by the then Sub Judge Ist Class, Pathankot, has filed the instant appeal.

(2.) THE facts which are culled out from the judgment of Lower Court are that the plaintiff worked as a Conductor in the Punjab Roadways with effect from 21.11.1970 to 20.6.1983 when he was removed from service. He was governed by the Punjab Roadways Operational (State Service) Class III Services Rules, 1977 as well as Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1973. He had challenged the validity and legality of the impugned order on the grounds that the charge sheet was issued to him on the basis of suspicion; that the documents on the basis of which charge sheet was framed were never shown to him either before the enquiry or during the course of enquiry proceedings; that his reply to the charge sheet was not considered at all; that the Enquiry Officer was not competent to conduct the enquiry; that the Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry as per rules; that the Enquiry Officer himself played the role of Prosecutor; that he was not allowed the assistance of legal practitioner or a Government servant; that there was no evidence against him during the enquiry; that he was not allowed to cross -examine the prosecution witnesses at length; that the Enquiry Officer did not record his defence statement according to service rules; that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on no legal evidence; that the show cause notice issued to him was also illegal and that the reply submitted by him was not considered.

(3.) ON notice, the defendants contested the suit and also filed joint written statement taking up preliminary objection that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit being an industrial worker. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiff was ex -Conductor and his remaining allegations were denied. It was specifically maintained that the impugned order passed against the plaintiff was perfectly legal and valid.