RSA No.268 of 1998 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.268 of 1998
Date of Decision: 12.12.2008
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala .....Appellant
Vs.
Gian Chand ....Respondent
....
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
****
Present : Ms.Lovejinder Kaur, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Surjit Singh, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Deepinder Kaur,
Advocate for the respondent.
….
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)
The Pepsu Road Transport Corporation challenges judgements
and decrees dated 22.12.1994 and 14.10.1997, passed by the Additional
Senior Sub Judge, Patiala and the Additional District Judge, Patiala,
decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing the appeal.
The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit praying for a declaration
that order dated 17.5.1991, terminating his services and the order dated
20.8.1991 dismissing his appeal are null and void, as the checking staff
stopped the bus before he could issue tickets. It was further alleged that as
the statements of passengers were not recorded, the punishing authority
could not have accepted the enquiry report and punished the respondent. In
opposition to the plaint, the appellant filed a written statement denying the
RSA No.268 of 1998 2
correctness of the averments in the plaint and asserting that departmental
proceedings and the order of punishment did not suffer from any error
prayed that the suit be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial
Court framed the following issues :-
“1.Whether orders dated 17.5.1991 and 20.8.1991 are
illegal and void ? OPP
2. Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the
suit ? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration
prayed for ? OPP
4. Relief.”
After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the
arguments addressed, the trial Court decreed the suit by holding that the
enquiry and the order of punishment were vitiated, for failure to record
statements of passengers. Reliance was placed on a judgement reported as
State of Haryana V. Mohan Singh, 1985(2) SLR 116. Aggrieved by the
aforementioned judgement and decree of the trial court the appellant filed
an appeal. The Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide judgement and
decree dated 14.10.1997 dismissed the appeal.
Counsel for the appellant submits that the Courts below
committed an error as the judgment in Mohan Singh’s case (supra), has
been over-ruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Surat Singh V.
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak and another, 1997(4) RSJ, 386
by holding that to bring home the guilt of a bus conductor, accused of not
issuing tickets to passengers, it is not necessary to record the statements of
RSA No.268 of 1998 3
passengers. Reliance is also placed on State of Haryana and another V.
Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 S.C. 1512(1) to urge that the impugned
judgements be set aside.
Counsel for the respondent does not deny the correctness of the
arguments advanced by the counsel for the appellant but submits that Courts
below set aside the punishment on another ground as well namely; that the
Inspector who appeared as a departmental witness did not depose that
passengers informed him that tickets had not been issued to them. It is
submitted that this fact assumes significance, in view of the respondent’s
stand that the bus was checked before he could issue tickets to the
passengers. It is, therefore, argued that as the basic ingredients required to
bring home the respondent’s guilt are missing, the Courts below rightly
decreed the suit and dismissed the appeal. It is further submitted that as
during the pendency of the appeal the respondent has retired after he was
reinstated, a lenient view should be taken.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
impugned judgements.
The question of law that arises for consideration is :
“1. Whether a domestic enquiry and the consequent order of
punishment can be held to be illegal for failure to record the
statements of the passengers ?”
Admittedly, the judgment in Mohan Singh’s case (supra), has
been over-ruled in Surat Singh V. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Rohtak and another, 1997(4) RSJ, 386 by holding it is not necessary to
record the statements of passengers to hold a defaulting conductor guilty. It
RSA No.268 of 1998 4
appears that the aforementioned fact was not brought to the notice of the
courts below. It would, therefore, have to be held that the Courts below
erred in placing reliance upon the judgment in Mohan Singh’s case
(supra) to hold that the domestic enquiry and the order of punishment are
illegal and void and as a result, their findings to that effect would have to
be set aside.
As regards the submission by counsel for the respondent that
departmental proceedings and the order of punishment are illegal, as the
Inspector failed to depose that passengers informed him that tickets had
not been issued, cannot be accepted, as such a statement falls within the
realm of hearsay evidence and would, therefore, be inadmissible.
In view of what has been stated herein above, the appeal is
accepted, the judgements and decrees passed by the Courts below are set
aside and the suit filed by the respondent is dismissed.
However, as the respondent has retired from service, after
reinstatement, pursuant to the judgements and decrees passed by the Courts
below, no recoveries of any amount already received by the respondent
shall be effected. No order as to costs.
12.12.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA)
GS JUDGE
RSA No.268 of 1998 5
The judicial adjudication, relating to orders passed in departmental
proceedings is confined to an appraisal of the proceedings and the order
passed thereon, so as to determine, whether the proceedings and orders
passed thereon are in any manner, arbitrary, perverse, malafide, violative of
any mandatory provision of law and more significant of all that these
infractions or infirmities have caused prejudice to the delinquent official in
putting forth his defence.