THE SECRETARY, PUNJAB SEB. Vs. O.P.CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, whereby the appeal of the appellants/defendants (hereafter referred to as the defendants or Dl and D2 as the case may be) against the judgment and decree dated 17.11.1987 passed by the learned Sub Judge 1st Class, Jogindernagar, decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff (hereafter referred to as the plaintiff) has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the presentation of this appeal are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration that the Office Order No. 836 dated 21.8.1984 passed by D -2 stopping the increment of the plaintiff is illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiff with the consequential relief of injunction directing the defendants to release the annual increment of the plaintiff with retrospective effect and pay all the arrears of pay arising therefrom to him. The case of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint is that at the material time he was working as Electrical Engineer in Shanan Power House at Jogindernagar. The petty jealousies prevailing in the department led to chargesheeting the plaintiff departmentally for demanding/taking bribe and releasing tubewell connections to a few persons with ulterior motive. After broad based inquiry on the charges against the plaintiff, he was exonerated of the charges against him. However, actuated with mala fide intention D -2 by the Order No. 836 dated 21.8.1984 stopped the annual increment of the plaintiff with future effect on the ground that the plaintiff had deliberately harassed the consumers. The said order is perverse and fraud with malice and is in contravention of the rules and regulations. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendants contested the suit. In their joint written statement, they raised the preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable, plaintiff has no cause of action and locus -standi to file the suit and the plaintiff is guilty of supresso veri and has not approached the court with clean hands. On merits, while admitting serving of chargesheet on the plaintiff and the consequential departmental inquiry, it is denied that the charges as enumerated in the chargesheet against the plaintiff on inquiry were found false. Only charge regarding bribe could not be proved against the plaintiff but it was specifically concluded by the Inquiry Officer that the plaintiff was found guilty of unnecessarily harassing the consumers for releasing tubewell connections to them. Therefore, the competent authority had ordered to stop one increment of the plaintiff with future effect vide order under reference. Hence the claim of the plaintiff has been denied.