RSA-3918-2016 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA Mohan Lal State of Punjab CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. for the Mr. Ravneet Singh Joshi, DAG, Punjab **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. 1. The present regular second appeal is preferred again decree dated Pathankot whereby the civil suit filed by the judgment and decree against the judgment and de Additional District FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE 2. Brief facts of the case as per civil suit are that serving in Punjab Transport Punjab, Chandigarh, vide or the appellant was on duty Pathankot to Amritsar and when the bus reach appellate abuse 16 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3918 Date of Reserve Date of Pronouncement vs. State of Punjab & ors. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. Kuldeep Sanwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravneet Singh Joshi, DAG, Punjab *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. The present regular second appeal is preferred again ree dated 08.05.2014 passed by learne Pathankot whereby the civil suit filed by the decree dated 01.09.2015 whereby the judgment and decree dated 08.05.2014 istrict Judge, Pathankot. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE Brief facts of the case as per civil suit are that serving in Punjab Roadways was dismissed from service by Transport Punjab, Chandigarh, vide order dated 29 the appellant was on duty on bus bearing number 8815 to Amritsar and when the bus reach appellate abused the booking clerk Sh. Mohinder Singh IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 3918-2016 (O&M) Reserve:- 25.08.2025 Pronouncement:-02.09.2025 ......Appellant vs. …..Respondent SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. Ravneet Singh Joshi, DAG, Punjab. The present regular second appeal is preferred against judgment and 2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division Pathankot whereby the civil suit filed by the appellant was dismissed 2015 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant 2014, was also dismissed by learned Brief facts of the case as per civil suit are that the appellant while from service by the Director State der dated 29.06.2005 on the allegations that n bus bearing number 8815 of Punjab Roadways to Amritsar and when the bus reached at Batala Bus Stand at 3:30, nder Singh. Further that the appellant 1 …..Respondents judgment and ivision), and llant learned the appellant while the Director State 2005 on the allegations that oadways the urther that the appellant GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.04 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3918-2016 (O&M) had consumed him a punch blow 30th October 20 Pathankot. He Thereafter, a enquiry, he was found guilty by served upon him to which he file service by Director State Transport Punjab, Chandigarh 29.06.2005. The appellant then filed departmental appeal 29.06.2005 before the Appellate Authority 24.02.2006. 3. The appellant f whereby he was dismiss appeal against the termination order dated 29.06.2005 was dismissed, ground that no legal reasonable opportunity to defend himself neither of him with respect to the allegation that he was under the influence of liquor nor of Mohinder suffered injuries against him at the 4. The civil suit filed by the appellant was dismissed, vide decree dated 0 Pathankot and the appeal filed against the same was also dismissed, and decree dated Pathankot. Hence, the present regular second appeal. 16 (O&M) liquor and quarreled with booking clerk nch blow, who suffered injuries and his shirt was so 30th October 2003, the appellant did not get his bus e was served with charge sheet to which he departmental enquiry was ordered he was found guilty by Enquiry Officer and served upon him to which he filed his reply. Director State Transport Punjab, Chandigarh . The appellant then filed departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority The appellant filed civil suit challenging order dated 2 whereby he was dismissed from service and order appeal against the termination order dated 29.06.2005 was dismissed, no legal and valid enquiry was conducted and he was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Further that no m neither of him with respect to the allegation that he was under the influence of Mohinder Singh booking clerk with respect to the allegation that he suffered injuries at the hand of the appellant against him at the instance of Mohinder Singh clerk The civil suit filed by the appellant was dismissed, vide decree dated 08.05.2014 passed by learne and the appeal filed against the same was also dismissed, dated 01.09.2015 passed by learned . Hence, the present regular second appeal. with booking clerk Mohinder Singh and gave who suffered injuries and his shirt was soaked in blood. did not get his bus booked and started of was served with charge sheet to which he gave his repl enquiry was ordered against the appellant and fficer and a show cause notice Thereafter he was dismissed from Director State Transport Punjab, Chandigarh, vide order dated . The appellant then filed departmental appeal against order dated before the Appellate Authority, which was also dismissed on civil suit challenging order dated 29.06.2 and order dated 24.02.2006 whereby his appeal against the termination order dated 29.06.2005 was dismissed, on the and valid enquiry was conducted and he was not given urther that no medical was conducted neither of him with respect to the allegation that he was under the influence of Singh booking clerk with respect to the allegation that he of the appellant. No criminal case was registered Singh clerk. The civil suit filed by the appellant was dismissed, vide judgment and 2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division and the appeal filed against the same was also dismissed, vide judgment learned Additional District Judge . Hence, the present regular second appeal. 2 gave On and started off to reply. and in a show cause notice was from , vide order dated against order dated which was also dismissed on 9.06.2005 24.02.2006 whereby his on the and valid enquiry was conducted and he was not given edical was conducted neither of him with respect to the allegation that he was under the influence of Singh booking clerk with respect to the allegation that he criminal case was registered judgment and ivision), judgment udge, GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.04 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3918-2016 (O&M) SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that not appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly as the appeal file 6. Per contra, learned counsel concurrent finding against the appel dismissed the civil suit as well as the appeal file 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD 8. A perusal dismissed from service after enquiry and Appeal) Rules and dismissal from service Punjab Civil Service was not granted opportunity of being h was not consider 9. A perusal examination admitted that he had documents. Further that he had cross examined the admitted that he cause notice and he replied to the same hearing was given to him by by the appellant hearing as well as opportunity of cross examination of 16 (O&M) SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES Learned counsel for the appellant contends that not appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly as the appeal filed by the appellant. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent concurrent finding against the appellant and both the civil suit as well as the appeal file I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance. ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD A perusal of the record shows that admitted from service after enquiry. Rule 8 of Rules, 1970 lays down the procedure for imposing major punishment from service is a major punishment Punjab Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal was not granted opportunity of being heard and reply filed by him to charge was not considered. A perusal of the record further examination admitted that he had received the charge sheet along . Further that he had cross examined the admitted that he received the findings of Enquiry notice and he replied to the same. Thereafter, hearing was given to him by Punishing Authority appellant itself fades away the allegation as well as charge sheet given without documents opportunity of cross examination of witnesses SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES Learned counsel for the appellant contends that both the Courts not appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly dismissed the civil suit as well for the respondents contends that there are and both the Courts have right civil suit as well as the appeal filed by the appellant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole of the record shows that admittedly, the appellant was ule 8 of Punjab Civil Service (Punishment procedure for imposing major punishment s a major punishment and is stipulated in Rule 5 of Appeal) Rules, 1970. As per appellant, ard and reply filed by him to charge sheet further shows that appellant in his cross received the charge sheet along with all . Further that he had cross examined the prosecution witnesses. He also nquiry Officer and he received show Thereafter, he admitted that person uthority. Thus, all the admissions made allegations regarding the grant of personal given without documents and not granted witnesses. The enquiry file which is Ex D1 3 the Courts did the civil suit as well here are have rightly I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole the appellant was ment procedure for imposing major punishment ule 5 of appellant, he sheet cross with all prosecution witnesses. He also show he admitted that personal made regarding the grant of personal and not granted The enquiry file which is Ex D1 GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.04 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3918-2016 (O&M) shows that there is no violation of Principles of natural justice. Moreover, there is admission of appellant CONCLUSION 9. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in decree dated Pathankot as well as Additional District 10. Accordingly 11. Parties accordingly. 12. Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. 02.09.2025 Gaurav Arora 16 (O&M) shows that there is no violation of Principles of natural justice. Moreover, there is admission of appellant himself regarding the same. CONCLUSION In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in ree dated 08.05.2014 passed by learne as well as judgment and decree dated istrict Judge, Pathankot and the same Accordingly, the present regular second appeal is Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable shows that there is no violation of Principles of natural justice. Moreover, there is regarding the same. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in judgment and learned Civil judge (Junior Division ree dated 01.09.2015 passed by learned and the same are upheld. the present regular second appeal is dismissed. are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes : Yes 4 shows that there is no violation of Principles of natural justice. Moreover, there is judgment and ivision), learned are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.04 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document