STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER Vs. ANOKH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal here is by the defendants seeking to challenge the judgment and decree dated 1.2.1986 passed by the then Additional District Judge, Amritsar whereby the appeal of the plaintiff/respondent was accepted. The judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was decreed.

(2.) The necessary facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff was working as a Conductor in the Punjab Roadways. Being a civil servant, he was entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. His services were terminated in terms of order dated 24.7.1980 passed by defendant No. 1. He filed a suit for a declaration to the effect that the order of termination of his services was wrong, illegal, cryptic, without jurisdiction, against rules and thus inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff/respondent. A charge-sheet was issued to him which was defective, vague, indefinite and illegal. It did not convey the entire material nor it disclosed the witnesses or documents by virtue of which the department proposed to substantiate the charges. The material on the basis of which charges were framed was not supplied to him despite verbal and written requests. He was not supplied the list of witnesses. He had submitted reply to the charge-sheet but his reply was not considered. Inquiry was conducted by an officer who was subordinate to General Manager and was otherwise not competent to hold the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer has based his findings on extraneous matters. The important witness was not examined during the course of inquiry which has resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity to him. There were instructions by the department that when the passengers were found without tickets and the Conductor had collected fare from them then the Checking Staff should record the statements of such passengers but these instructions have been violated in the present case as the statement of none of the passengers was recorded. He was not supplied with the copy of report made by the Inspector. The Punishing Authority pre-judged the guilt in the charge-sheet. The show cause notice issued to him was illegal, defective and vague. The Punishing Authority proposed to inflict punishment without applying its mind to the facts of the case. The statements of the witnesses recorded during the inquiry did not prove any case against him. His cash was not checked at any stage. The passengers who were said to have been found without tickets were most material witnesses but they have not been examined. The reasoning given by the Inquiry Officer that as the plaintiff has not been able to rebut the charges so the charges stand proved against him is not based on law and rules.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It was admitted that the plaintiff was in the employment of Punjab Roadways, Tarn Taran. It was also admitted that his services were terminated on 24.7.1980. It was further admitted that there were instructions from the department that the statements of passengers found without tickets, should be recorded.