DALBIR SINGH Vs. PUNJAB STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the Courts below whereby his suit has been dismissed.

(2.) Plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that order dated 27.11.1989 stopping his five increments with cumulative effect is illegal, void ab-initio and inoperative in the eyes of law. Plaintiff also challenged order dated 25.4.1991 rejecting his appeal, being illegal, inoperative and not binding on his rights.

(3.) Plaintiff (appellant herein) was working as Inspector, Co-operative Societies. On 12.1.1988, plaintiff was served with a charge-sheet in which seven charges were levelled against him. He submitted his reply to the charge-sheet explaining that the charges levelled against him are false and fabricated. Disciplinary Authority being not satisfied with his explanation appointed an Inquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. Inquiry officer found all charges proved against the plaintiff. On submission of the enquiry report, show - cause notice dated 5.6.1989 was served upon the plaintiff as to why his service be not terminated. Plaintiff was also supplied a copy of the enquiry report. Plaintiff submitted a detailed reply explaining each and every charge and contended that the finding of the Inquiry Officer is contrary to the facts explained on record. Disciplinary Authority passed order dated 27.11.1989 ordering stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect. Plaintiff filed statutory appeal but vide order dated 25.4.1991, it was rejected. Plaintiff instituted civil suit for declaration that order of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect and the order rejecting the appeal of the plaintiff are illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, void and inoperative. Suit was contested by the State on the ground that the order of punishment was passed against the plaintiff after holding proper enquiry and affording of an opportunity of hearing. Trial Court held that the order of stoppage of five increments was passed after providing full opportunity and the Inquiry Officer had considered all the aspects of the case and a detailed report in this regard was submitted to Disciplinary Authority. In appeal, the finding of the trial Court has been affirmed by the first appellate Court. Hence, this second appeal by the plaintiff.