RSA-4711-2001 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Pritam Chand Punjab State and CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate and Mr. Shourya Mehra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.S.Gill, Sr. DAG, Punjab. SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J (Oral). The present appeal is 21.08.2001 passed by the learned filed by the respondent passed by the learned and the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. BRIEF FACTS 2. The brief facts Conductor in the respondent appellant, which culminated into Order No.4730 by which the pay of the appellant was reduced to minimum of time scale of pay for a period of five y suspension, over and above the subsistence allowance already paid to him. 2001 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- RSA Date of Decision : VERSUS Punjab State and Another HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate and Mr. Shourya Mehra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.S.Gill, Sr. DAG, Punjab. . -.- SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J (Oral). The present appeal is preferred against the passed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent – State against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.1999 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), and the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. BRIEF FACTS The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as onductor in the respondent – Department. The enquiry was conducted against the appellant, which culminated into Order No.4730 by which the pay of the appellant was reduced to minimum of time scale of pay for a period of five years forfeiting all his arrears during which he remained under suspension, over and above the subsistence allowance already paid to him. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-4711-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision : 05.03.2025 ....Appellant ....Respondents SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. Shourya Mehra, Advocate for the appellant. preferred against the judgment and decree dated District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the appeal State against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.1999 (Sr. Division), Batala was accepted and the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. case are that the appellant was working as Department. The enquiry was conducted against the appellant, which culminated into Order No.4730-33/Steno/GM dated 19.07.1996 by which the pay of the appellant was reduced to minimum of time scale of pay for ears forfeiting all his arrears during which he remained under suspension, over and above the subsistence allowance already paid to him. dated District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby the appeal State against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.1999 Batala was accepted case are that the appellant was working as Department. The enquiry was conducted against the 33/Steno/GM dated 19.07.1996 by which the pay of the appellant was reduced to minimum of time scale of pay for ears forfeiting all his arrears during which he remained under TRIPTI SAINI 2025.03.28 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4711-2001 (O&M) 3. He filed civil suit challenging the decreed in his favour by Additional Civil Jud judgment and decree dated 19.01.1999. 4. The respondent/State of Punjab filed appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.01.199 Batala, which was allowed judgment and decree dated 21.08.2001. 5. Hence the present appeal. SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned First Appellate Court has totally ignored the contention of the appellant that punishing authority passed the impugned order dated 19.07.1996 without application of mind. 7. Per contra, and decreed passed by the 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case. 9. The civil suit was filed by the appellant chal 19.07.1996, whereby the pay of the appellant was reduced to minimum of time scale of pay for a period of five years remained under suspension, over and above the subsistence allowance alrea to him inter alia judicious mind and he was not supplied the relevant documents forming the basis of charge-sheet. His further ground to challenge was that he was not allowed to inspect the record and that the reply to the charge 2001 (O&M) He filed civil suit challenging the decreed in his favour by Additional Civil Jud judgment and decree dated 19.01.1999. The respondent/State of Punjab filed appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.01.1999 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Batala, which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur judgment and decree dated 21.08.2001. Hence the present appeal. SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned First Appellate Court has totally ignored the contention of the appellant that punishing authority passed the impugned order dated 19.07.1996 without application of Per contra, learned State counsel argues on the lines of the judgment and decreed passed by the learned First Appellate Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case. The civil suit was filed by the appellant chal 19.07.1996, whereby the pay of the appellant was reduced to minimum of time pay for a period of five years forfeiting all his arrears during which he remained under suspension, over and above the subsistence allowance alrea inter alia on the ground that charge-sheet was not served with open and judicious mind and he was not supplied the relevant documents forming the basis sheet. His further ground to challenge was that he was not allowed to the record and that the reply to the charge -2- He filed civil suit challenging the order dated 19.07.1996 which was decreed in his favour by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Batala, vide its The respondent/State of Punjab filed appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide its SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned First Appellate Court has totally ignored the contention of the appellant that punishing authority passed the impugned order dated 19.07.1996 without application of argues on the lines of the judgment First Appellate Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole The civil suit was filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 19.07.1996, whereby the pay of the appellant was reduced to minimum of time forfeiting all his arrears during which he remained under suspension, over and above the subsistence allowance already paid sheet was not served with open and judicious mind and he was not supplied the relevant documents forming the basis sheet. His further ground to challenge was that he was not allowed to the record and that the reply to the charge-sheet submitted by him was not which was ge (Sr. Division), Batala, vide its The respondent/State of Punjab filed appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), , vide its Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned First Appellate Court has totally ignored the contention of the appellant that punishing authority passed the impugned order dated 19.07.1996 without application of argues on the lines of the judgment I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole lenging the order dated 19.07.1996, whereby the pay of the appellant was reduced to minimum of time forfeiting all his arrears during which he dy paid sheet was not served with open and judicious mind and he was not supplied the relevant documents forming the basis sheet. His further ground to challenge was that he was not allowed to sheet submitted by him was not TRIPTI SAINI 2025.03.28 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4711-2001 (O&M) considered. 10. A perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent shows that charge were supplied to unsatisfactory. The appellant had cross and after giving enquiry report was submitted, which was thorough in observed by the learned First Appellate Court that in para passed by the learned specifically stated there was an endorsement in green ink on that reply made by the punishing authority to the was directed to appear for personal hearing. Even in the letter regarding hearing it was endorsed that the appellant was heard in person and the reply was considered and the personal hearing was also given to the appellant. 11. A perusal of the record shows that notice of personal hearing was given to the appellant in which dismissal and second for forfeiture of pay and allowances during the suspension period. 12. A perusal of the record further shows that reply to the show cause notice was filed by the appellant on unsatisfactory vide noting of punish for personal hearing then the order was made that he had been heard in considered and taking lenient view, the order was passed reducing his pay to the 2001 (O&M) A perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent shows that charge-sheet was served upon the appellant, a were supplied to him and reply to charge unsatisfactory. The appellant had cross-examined the witnesses during enquiry and after giving him proper show cause notice and considering the reply enquiry report was submitted, which was thorough in observed by the learned First Appellate Court that in para passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Batala, it has been specifically stated that reply was on page 103 of the enquiry file there was an endorsement in green ink on that reply made by the punishing effect that reply was found to be unsatisfactory and the appellant was directed to appear for personal hearing. Even in the letter regarding hearing it was endorsed that the appellant was heard in person and the reply was considered and the personal hearing was also given to the appellant. A perusal of the record shows that notice of personal hearing was given to the appellant in which two sentences were proposed; one for his proposed dismissal and second for forfeiture of pay and allowances during the suspension A perusal of the record further shows that reply to the show cause notice was filed by the appellant on 08.05.1996 and the same was found to be unsatisfactory vide noting of punishing authority dated for personal hearing for 02.07.1996. His statement on the notice was recorded and then the order was made that he had been heard in considered and taking lenient view, the order was passed reducing his pay to the -3- A perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent-State t was served upon the appellant, all the relevant documents him and reply to charge-sheet was considered to be examined the witnesses during enquiry proper show cause notice and considering the reply, enquiry report was submitted, which was thorough in itself. It has been rightly observed by the learned First Appellate Court that in para-12 of the judgment Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Batala, it has been that reply was on page 103 of the enquiry file as Ex.P/1 and that there was an endorsement in green ink on that reply made by the punishing effect that reply was found to be unsatisfactory and the appellant was directed to appear for personal hearing. Even in the letter regarding person hearing it was endorsed that the appellant was heard in person and the reply was considered and the personal hearing was also given to the appellant. A perusal of the record shows that notice of personal hearing was two sentences were proposed; one for his proposed dismissal and second for forfeiture of pay and allowances during the suspension A perusal of the record further shows that reply to the show cause 08.05.1996 and the same was found to be authority dated 09.05.1996. He was called tatement on the notice was recorded and then the order was made that he had been heard in person and his reply had been considered and taking lenient view, the order was passed reducing his pay to the State ll the relevant documents sheet was considered to be examined the witnesses during enquiry the itself. It has been rightly 12 of the judgment Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Batala, it has been Ex.P/1 and that there was an endorsement in green ink on that reply made by the punishing effect that reply was found to be unsatisfactory and the appellant personal hearing it was endorsed that the appellant was heard in person and the reply was A perusal of the record shows that notice of personal hearing was two sentences were proposed; one for his proposed dismissal and second for forfeiture of pay and allowances during the suspension A perusal of the record further shows that reply to the show cause 08.05.1996 and the same was found to be 09.05.1996. He was called tatement on the notice was recorded and person and his reply had been considered and taking lenient view, the order was passed reducing his pay to the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.03.28 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-4711-2001 (O&M) minimum pay scale for the period of 05 years and forfeiture of the suspension allowance. Therefore, the contention of the appellant cannot be ac impugned order dated 19.07.1996 was passed without any 13. It is apparent from the record that proper enquiry was conducted and there is no document granted to the appellant. It is o appellant to whom the opportunity of personal hearing was impugned order dated 14. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2001 the appeal of the respondent appellant was dismissed. 15. The present regular second appeal is dismissed 16. Decree sheet be drawn. 17. Pending application March 05, 2025. tripti Whether Whether reportable 2001 (O&M) minimum pay scale for the period of 05 years and forfeiture of the suspension allowance. Therefore, the contention of the appellant cannot be ac impugned order dated 19.07.1996 was passed without any It is apparent from the record that proper enquiry was conducted and there is no document on record to show that the opportunity of being heard w granted to the appellant. It is only after considering the reply and after hearing the appellant to whom the opportunity of personal hearing was impugned order dated 19.07.1996 was passed. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur the appeal of the respondent – State was accepted and the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed. The present regular second appeal is dismissed Decree sheet be drawn. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. March 05, 2025. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes -4- minimum pay scale for the period of 05 years and forfeiture of the suspension allowance. Therefore, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted that the impugned order dated 19.07.1996 was passed without any application of mind. It is apparent from the record that proper enquiry was conducted and record to show that the opportunity of being heard was not nly after considering the reply and after hearing the appellant to whom the opportunity of personal hearing was also given, the In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and passed by the learned District Judge, Gurdaspur, whereby State was accepted and the suit filed by the The present regular second appeal is dismissed. , if any, also stand disposed of. , if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE speaking : Speaking minimum pay scale for the period of 05 years and forfeiture of the suspension cepted that the It is apparent from the record that proper enquiry was conducted and as not nly after considering the reply and after hearing the given, the In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and whereby State was accepted and the suit filed by the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.03.28 17:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document