RSA-758-2008 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA Jaswant Singh State of Punjab Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Mr. Rajat Khanna, Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh, Mr. Paramjit Singh, Mr. Sumbhav Parmar, Advocates for the Mr. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. 1. The present Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated Gurdaspur, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent the judgment and decree dated (Junior Division), BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 2. Brief facts of the case appointed as PCMS services were regularized order dated 28/06/ 08 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-758 Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab & ors. Date of Reserve: Date of Pronouncement: Uploaded on: Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. Rajiv Atma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajat Khanna, Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh, Mr. Paramjit Singh, Mr. Sumbhav Parmar, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Animesh Sharma, Addl.A.G. Punjab *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. The present Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 passed by the learned , whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge Division), Gurdaspur was set aside. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE Brief facts of the case as per civil suit PCMS in health department on regularized on 24/9/1976. Since /06/1999, the services of the appellant were 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 758-2008 (O&M) ......Appellant …..Respondents Date of Reserve: 01.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 18.04.2026 Uploaded on:- 20.04.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No SUDEEPTI SHARMA assisted by Mr. Rajat Khanna, Mr. Vijay Pratap Singh, Mr. Paramjit Singh, Animesh Sharma, Addl.A.G. Punjab The present Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, , whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent-State was allowed and passed by the learned Civil Judge as per civil suit are that the appellant in health department on 04/03/1976 on adhoc basis. His then he is working diligently. Vide of the appellant were terminated on the basis The present Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment District Judge, was allowed and passed by the learned Civil Judge the appellant was adhoc basis. His diligently. Vide terminated on the basis GAURAV ARORA 2026.04.20 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-758-2008 (O&M) of allegation of absence from duty and Government. The challenged the dismissal order by filing civil suit, which was decreed in his favour, vide judgment and decree dated 18.05.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurdaspur. The respond accepted, vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur. Hence the present appeal. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES 3. Learned learned Addl. District Judge the respondent documentary) on record. He further contends that decree dated 18.05.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurdaspur has been reversed by learned First Appellate Court. He, therefore, prays that present Regular Second Appeal be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned coun First Appellate Court dismissed the civil suit filed by the appellant. Regular Second Appeal be 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the record with their able assistance. ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD 6. A perusal of the record reveals that appointed as PCMS on Charge sheet dated 14.02.1991 remaining absent from duty from 08 (O&M) of allegation of absence from duty and . The enquiry was ordered to be conducted against him. The appellant challenged the dismissal order by filing civil suit, which was decreed in his favour, vide judgment and decree dated 18.05.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurdaspur. The respondent-State filed appeal against the same, which was accepted, vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur. Hence the present appeal. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the District Judge, Gurdaspur has wrongly accepted the appeal filed by the respondent-State without appreciating the evidence (oral as well as documentary) on record. He further contends that decree dated 18.05.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurdaspur has been reversed by learned First Appellate Court. He, therefore, prays that present Regular Second Appeal be allowed. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent First Appellate Court has rightly accepted the appeal filed by the respondent dismissed the civil suit filed by the appellant. He, therefore, prays that Regular Second Appeal be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the record with their able assistance. ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD A perusal of the record reveals that appointed as PCMS on 04.03.1976. His services were regularized on Charge sheet dated 14.02.1991 was issued against him for unauthorizedly remaining absent from duty from 02.12.1989 2 of allegation of absence from duty and violating the instructions of the was ordered to be conducted against him. The appellant challenged the dismissal order by filing civil suit, which was decreed in his favour, vide judgment and decree dated 18.05.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. State filed appeal against the same, which was accepted, vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur. Hence the present appeal. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the has wrongly accepted the appeal filed by State without appreciating the evidence (oral as well as documentary) on record. He further contends that well reasoned judgment and decree dated 18.05.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurdaspur has been reversed by learned First Appellate Court. He, therefore, prays that sel for the respondent-State contends that the has rightly accepted the appeal filed by the respondents He, therefore, prays that the present I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have carefully perused the record with their able assistance. A perusal of the record reveals that admittedly, the appellant was . His services were regularized on 24.09.1976. was issued against him for unauthorizedly 02.12.1989 and not following government instructions of the was ordered to be conducted against him. The appellant challenged the dismissal order by filing civil suit, which was decreed in his favour, vide judgment and decree dated 18.05.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. State filed appeal against the same, which was accepted, vide judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 passed by learned Addl. counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the has wrongly accepted the appeal filed by State without appreciating the evidence (oral as well as judgment and decree dated 18.05.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Gurdaspur has been reversed by learned First Appellate Court. He, therefore, prays that the that the and the present I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have admittedly, the appellant was 24.09.1976. was issued against him for unauthorizedly and not following government GAURAV ARORA 2026.04.20 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-758-2008 (O&M) instructions. He filed reply dated 08.03.1991 bad health, he applied for leave along with medical certificates of Civil Hospital. Thereafter, Enquiry officer namely Dr.Manmohan Kaur was appointed, vide order dated 08.06.1991 was rejected by the Government on 30.07.1995 Report submitted by Dr. Manmohan Kaur dated 07.04.1994 de novo enquiry was ordered. 7. A perusal of the record further shows that appellant had put in more than 23 years of service. The appellant appeared in the witness box as PW1 and stated that he gave reply to charge sheet and his reply was not considered. DW1 in his cross examination ad perusal of the record further shows that appellant in his evidence stated that no list of witnesses was given to him, which is further affirmed by DW1 in his cross examination who stated that the name of appellant. DW1 which was not considered, since the appellant did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. DW1 also admitted in his cross examination that leave which was accompanied by certificates from Doctors showing that his health did not allow him to join the duty. The cross examination of that appellant could not join duty because of medical reasons. A perusal filed by the appellant also shows the same. grounds but the same was rejected. In his examination in chief, appellant stated that he applied to enquiry officer for holding enquiry at Gurdaspur because of health reasons also admitted that the appellant applied for change of venue of Enquiry at Gurdaspur but his request was not considered without any reasons. There is 08 (O&M) He filed reply dated 08.03.1991 to the same bad health, he applied for leave along with medical certificates of Civil Hospital. Thereafter, Enquiry officer namely Dr.Manmohan Kaur was appointed, vide order dated 08.06.1991 (Ex D2). She submitted enquiry report on 07.04.1 was rejected by the Government on 30.07.1995 Report submitted by Dr. Manmohan Kaur dated 07.04.1994 enquiry was ordered. A perusal of the record further shows that appellant had put in more than 23 years of service. The appellant appeared in the witness box as PW1 and stated that he gave reply to charge sheet and his reply was not considered. DW1 in his cross examination admitted that the appellant replied to charge sheet. A perusal of the record further shows that appellant in his evidence stated that no list of witnesses was given to him, which is further affirmed by DW1 in his cross examination who stated that the name of witnesses were not supplied to the DW1 further stated that reply to charge sheet was given by the appellant which was not considered, since the appellant did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. DW1 also admitted in his cross examination that was accompanied by certificates from Doctors showing that his health did not allow him to join the duty. The cross examination of that appellant could not join duty because of medical reasons. A perusal filed by the appellant also shows the same. grounds but the same was rejected. In his examination in chief, appellant stated that he applied to enquiry officer for holding enquiry at Gurdaspur because of ons but his request was not considered. DW1 in his cross examination also admitted that the appellant applied for change of venue of Enquiry at Gurdaspur but his request was not considered without any reasons. There is 3 to the same stating therein that due to bad health, he applied for leave along with medical certificates of Civil Hospital. Thereafter, Enquiry officer namely Dr.Manmohan Kaur was appointed, vide order (Ex D2). She submitted enquiry report on 07.04.1994, which was rejected by the Government on 30.07.1995 without any reason. The Enquiry Report submitted by Dr. Manmohan Kaur dated 07.04.1994 was not accepted and A perusal of the record further shows that appellant had put in more than 23 years of service. The appellant appeared in the witness box as PW1 and stated that he gave reply to charge sheet and his reply was not considered. DW1 in mitted that the appellant replied to charge sheet. A perusal of the record further shows that appellant in his evidence stated that no list of witnesses was given to him, which is further affirmed by DW1 in his cross witnesses were not supplied to the further stated that reply to charge sheet was given by the appellant which was not considered, since the appellant did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. DW1 also admitted in his cross examination that appellant applied for was accompanied by certificates from Doctors showing that his health did not allow him to join the duty. The cross examination of DW1 further shows that appellant could not join duty because of medical reasons. A perusal of reply filed by the appellant also shows the same. He applied for leave on medical grounds but the same was rejected. In his examination in chief, appellant stated that he applied to enquiry officer for holding enquiry at Gurdaspur because of his request was not considered. DW1 in his cross examination also admitted that the appellant applied for change of venue of Enquiry at Gurdaspur but his request was not considered without any reasons. There is stating therein that due to bad health, he applied for leave along with medical certificates of Civil Hospital. Thereafter, Enquiry officer namely Dr.Manmohan Kaur was appointed, vide order 994, which without any reason. The Enquiry was not accepted and A perusal of the record further shows that appellant had put in more than 23 years of service. The appellant appeared in the witness box as PW1 and stated that he gave reply to charge sheet and his reply was not considered. DW1 in mitted that the appellant replied to charge sheet. A perusal of the record further shows that appellant in his evidence stated that no list of witnesses was given to him, which is further affirmed by DW1 in his cross witnesses were not supplied to the further stated that reply to charge sheet was given by the appellant which was not considered, since the appellant did not appear before the Enquiry applied for was accompanied by certificates from Doctors showing that his health W1 further shows of reply e applied for leave on medical grounds but the same was rejected. In his examination in chief, appellant stated that he applied to enquiry officer for holding enquiry at Gurdaspur because of his request was not considered. DW1 in his cross examination also admitted that the appellant applied for change of venue of Enquiry at Gurdaspur but his request was not considered without any reasons. There is GAURAV ARORA 2026.04.20 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-758-2008 (O&M) nothing to show that there is any com negligence on the part of the appellant during his service period. The whole record of this case shows that due to medical reasons Further in the reply dated 08.03.1991 specifically stated that because of health reasons, he could not join the duties nor he could appear before the Medical Board at Gurdaspur and his absence from duty was beyond his control. He further stated that he ignoring his health also. A perusal Manmohan Kaur, Director Health Family Welfare Punjab, Chandigarh cum Enquiry Officer by Secretary to Punjab Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Punjab stating therein his asking for permission to join his duty and this effect is to be taken at the Government level only and intention of the appellant to be 8. A perusal of the impugned order of dismissal dated 07.07.1999 deciding allegations of unauthorisedly remaining absent from duty on 02.12.1989 and non compliance of the directions issued by the to reply filed by the appellant and its consideration condition of the appellant as well as there is nothing in order by the appellant to conduct the enquiry at Gurdaspur due to his health reasons. Further, the request made by the appellant was genuine which could be considered by the respondent since he was working with the respondent for the last 23 year and due to health reasons, he applied for leave which was also rejected. 9. The reasoning for not joining the enquiry was also due to health problems and he made request 08 (O&M) nothing to show that there is any complaint against the appellant or negligence on the part of the appellant during his service period. The whole record of this case shows that due to medical reasons Further in the reply dated 08.03.1991 to show cause notice, the appellant had specifically stated that because of health reasons, he could not join the duties nor he could appear before the Medical Board at Gurdaspur and his absence from duty was beyond his control. He further stated that he ignoring his health also. A perusal of letter dated 14.08.1996 Manmohan Kaur, Director Health Family Welfare Punjab, Chandigarh cum Enquiry Officer by Secretary to Punjab Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Punjab stating therein regarding reply submitted by the appellant and his asking for permission to join his duty and this effect is to be taken at the Government level only tention of the appellant to be bona fide. A perusal of the impugned order of dismissal dated 07.07.1999 deciding allegations of unauthorisedly remaining absent from duty on 02.12.1989 and non compliance of the directions issued by the to reply filed by the appellant and its consideration condition of the appellant as well as his willingness to join the duty. More there is nothing in order of dismissal dated 07.07.1999 by the appellant to conduct the enquiry at Gurdaspur due to his health reasons. request made by the appellant was genuine which could be considered by the respondent since he was working with the respondent for the last 23 year to health reasons, he applied for leave which was also rejected. The reasoning for not joining the enquiry was also due to health problems and he made request for holding enquiry at Gurdaspur itself which was 4 against the appellant or misconduct or negligence on the part of the appellant during his service period. The whole record of this case shows that due to medical reasons, appellant could not join dut to show cause notice, the appellant had specifically stated that because of health reasons, he could not join the duties nor he could appear before the Medical Board at Gurdaspur and his absence from duty was beyond his control. He further stated that he was right to join his duties by letter dated 14.08.1996 written by Dr. Manmohan Kaur, Director Health Family Welfare Punjab, Chandigarh cum Enquiry Officer by Secretary to Punjab Government, Health and Family Welfare reply submitted by the appellant and his asking for permission to join his duty and her observation that the decision to this effect is to be taken at the Government level only further proves the conduct A perusal of the impugned order of dismissal dated 07.07.1999 deciding allegations of unauthorisedly remaining absent from duty on 02.12.1989 and non compliance of the directions issued by the Government nowhere referred to reply filed by the appellant and its consideration with respect to the medical willingness to join the duty. More dismissal dated 07.07.1999 regarding the request made by the appellant to conduct the enquiry at Gurdaspur due to his health reasons. request made by the appellant was genuine which could be considered by the respondent since he was working with the respondent for the last 23 year to health reasons, he applied for leave which was also rejected. The reasoning for not joining the enquiry was also due to health holding enquiry at Gurdaspur itself which was misconduct or negligence on the part of the appellant during his service period. The whole record appellant could not join duty. to show cause notice, the appellant had specifically stated that because of health reasons, he could not join the duties nor he could appear before the Medical Board at Gurdaspur and his absence from duty right to join his duties by by Dr. Manmohan Kaur, Director Health Family Welfare Punjab, Chandigarh cum Enquiry Officer by Secretary to Punjab Government, Health and Family Welfare reply submitted by the appellant and that the decision to further proves the conduct A perusal of the impugned order of dismissal dated 07.07.1999 deciding allegations of unauthorisedly remaining absent from duty on 02.12.1989 nowhere referred the medical willingness to join the duty. More so, t made by the appellant to conduct the enquiry at Gurdaspur due to his health reasons. request made by the appellant was genuine which could be considered by the respondent since he was working with the respondent for the last 23 year The reasoning for not joining the enquiry was also due to health holding enquiry at Gurdaspur itself which was GAURAV ARORA 2026.04.20 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-758-2008 (O&M) not even considered. regarding the same appreciate the evidence on record to choose the venue of enquiry without appreciating problem of the appellant, which was supported by the medical certificates. The learned First Appellate Court ignored the fact that it is not the case of the respondent-State that the appellant willingly absented himself from the whole record shows that because of medical reasons, he applied for leave, which was rejected Gurdaspur for health reasons, was not even considered. Further, the learned First Appellate Court ignored the evidence on record which proves for remaining absent as well as not joining the enquiry by the appellant. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons recorded hereinabove, The judgment and decree dated Addl. District Judge, dated 18.05.200 is affirmed and civil suit filed by the appellant is decreed in Accordingly, the present Regular Second Appeal is 11. The date of birth of the appellant is 15.05.1949, as per which he is almost 77 years of age as on date. He filed civil suit in the year 2000 which was decided in the year 2002. The decided in the year 2007 appeal in the year 2008 present Regular Second Appeal years from the date of filing the present appeal and for the last almost 26 years from the date of filing of civil suit. Therefore, 08 (O&M) not even considered. In order of dismissal dated 07.07.1999 regarding the same. Learned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur did not consider and appreciate the evidence on record, while holding that it is not the appellant who is se the venue of enquiry without appreciating of the appellant, which was supported by the medical certificates. The learned First Appellate Court ignored the fact that it is not the case of the State that the appellant willingly absented himself from the whole record shows that because of medical reasons, he applied for leave, which was rejected. And the request to change the venue from Chandigarh to Gurdaspur for health reasons, was not even considered. Further, the learned First e Court ignored the evidence on record which proves for remaining absent as well as not joining the enquiry by the appellant. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons recorded The judgment and decree dated District Judge, Gurdaspur, is hereby set aside, and the judgment and decree 18.05.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge ( is affirmed and civil suit filed by the appellant is decreed in the present Regular Second Appeal is The date of birth of the appellant is 15.05.1949, as per which he is almost 77 years of age as on date. He filed civil suit in the year 2000 which was decided in the year 2002. The appeal filed by the State against the same was decided in the year 2007. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present regular second appeal in the year 2008 and since 2008, he is waiting for present Regular Second Appeal. Meaning thereby, years from the date of filing the present appeal and for the last almost 26 years from the date of filing of civil suit. Therefore, 5 dated 07.07.1999 there is no whisper earned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur did not consider and holding that it is not the appellant who is se the venue of enquiry without appreciating the fact of bad health/health of the appellant, which was supported by the medical certificates. The learned First Appellate Court ignored the fact that it is not the case of the State that the appellant willingly absented himself from duty, rather the whole record shows that because of medical reasons, he applied for leave, request to change the venue from Chandigarh to Gurdaspur for health reasons, was not even considered. Further, the learned First e Court ignored the evidence on record which proves bona fide reasons for remaining absent as well as not joining the enquiry by the appellant. In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons recorded The judgment and decree dated 22.09.2007 passed by the learned hereby set aside, and the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur is affirmed and civil suit filed by the appellant is decreed in his favour. the present Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The date of birth of the appellant is 15.05.1949, as per which he is almost 77 years of age as on date. He filed civil suit in the year 2000 which was appeal filed by the State against the same was . Thereafter, the appellant filed the present regular second and since 2008, he is waiting for the decision in the . Meaning thereby, he is waiting for the last 18 years from the date of filing the present appeal and for the last almost 26 years from the date of filing of civil suit. Therefore, justice demands that he should not whisper earned Addl. District Judge, Gurdaspur did not consider and holding that it is not the appellant who is of bad health/health of the appellant, which was supported by the medical certificates. The learned First Appellate Court ignored the fact that it is not the case of the rather the whole record shows that because of medical reasons, he applied for leave, request to change the venue from Chandigarh to Gurdaspur for health reasons, was not even considered. Further, the learned First reasons In view of the foregoing discussion and reasons recorded passed by the learned hereby set aside, and the judgment and decree Gurdaspur, his favour. The date of birth of the appellant is 15.05.1949, as per which he is almost 77 years of age as on date. He filed civil suit in the year 2000 which was appeal filed by the State against the same was . Thereafter, the appellant filed the present regular second the decision in the for the last 18 years from the date of filing the present appeal and for the last almost 26 years that he should not GAURAV ARORA 2026.04.20 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-758-2008 (O&M) be forced by the respondent filed by the appellant is decreed in his favour and his dismissal order dated 07.07.1999 is set aside, therefore, the appellant is entitled to retiral benefits. The respondent-State is directed to calculate th fixing his pay as well as consequential benefits carry interest @ 7% per annum. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of passing of 12. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared 13. Pending applications if any also stands disposed of. 18.04.2026 Gaurav Arora 08 (O&M) be forced by the respondent-State to file the execution petition. Since the civil suit filed by the appellant is decreed in his favour and his dismissal order dated set aside, therefore, the appellant is entitled to retiral benefits. The State is directed to calculate the pensionary benefits by notionally his pay as well as consequential benefits interest @ 7% per annum. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of passing of the judgment., Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared Pending applications if any also stands disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 6 e the execution petition. Since the civil suit filed by the appellant is decreed in his favour and his dismissal order dated set aside, therefore, the appellant is entitled to retiral benefits. The e pensionary benefits by notionally his pay as well as consequential benefits. The amount so calculated shall interest @ 7% per annum. This exercise shall be completed within a period the judgment., Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared Pending applications if any also stands disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes : Yes e the execution petition. Since the civil suit filed by the appellant is decreed in his favour and his dismissal order dated set aside, therefore, the appellant is entitled to retiral benefits. The e pensionary benefits by notionally . The amount so calculated shall interest @ 7% per annum. This exercise shall be completed within a period GAURAV ARORA 2026.04.20 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document