STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. HARJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by Harjinder Singh, an Ex. Senior Clerk in the Office of Town Employment Officer, Pathankot, for declaration that the order dated 15.11.1989 dismissing him from service read with the order of the Appellate Authority dated 7.8.1991 was illegal, ineffective and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, was decreed by learned Sub Judge, Ferozepur, on 13.12.1995. Appeal against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur vide judgment dated 21.7.1997 giving rise to the present Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) In order to appreciate the riv (sic) contentions raised on behalf of the parties by their respective learned counsels reference to facts would be necessary. The plaintiff was working as a Clerk under the Labour and Employment Department of State of Punjab and was subsequently promoted as Senior Clerk in the afore-stated department. Being the servant of the State of Punjab, the plaintiff claims the protection under the Punjab Civil Service Rules and Instructions issued by the Government in that regard. The charge-sheet was served upon the plaintiff and upon conclusion of departmental enquiry, vide order dated 15.11.1989 the plaintiff was dismissed from service. He preferred an appeal against the said order of dismissal which was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 7.8.1991 as conveyed to the plaintiff on 18.1.1993. While dismissing the plaintiff from service, the disciplinary authority also concluded that the plaintiff would not be entitled to receive any amount over and above the amount paid i.e. subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. According to the plaintiff, the enquiry was in violation of provisions of Rules 8 and 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. It was further contended that there was violation of principles of natural justice as copies of the report and the statements were not supplied to him at the requisite time and stage.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants who denied the averments made in the plaint and took up a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that no valid and proper notice under Section 80 CPC was served upon the department. It was stated that prior to the present enquiry on three different occasions, the annual grade increments of the plaintiff were stopped with cumulative effect and adverse remarks had been recorded in his report. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had been making bogus cards in his department and that was a sufficient evidence against the plaintiff. According to the defendants there was no violation of rules or principles of natural justice.