Prtc v. Jarnail Singh
1
Reserved on: 03.04.2024
Pronounced on: 26.04.2024 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala and others ......Appellants
Versus
Jarnail Singh ......Respondent Argued by: Mr. Anupam Singla, Advocate, for the appellants.
Mr. Rohit Singla, Advocate, for the respondent.
1.
This Regular Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.05.1992 passed by the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Bathinda, whereby suit filed by the respondent plaintiff for declaration was decreed as well as against the judgment and decree dated 08.10.1993 passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, whereby appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 22.05.1992, has been dismissed. 2.
For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the civil suit. Briefly, plaintiff filed a suit for declaration pleading therein that he was permanently posted as
2 Conductor No. B196 and served under Depot Manager, P.R.T.C., Bathinda1 (defendant No. 6). His services were terminated by Depot Manager, P.R.T.C., Barnala (defendant No. 5) vide order dated 30.03.1988, which is illegal, unconstitutional and ultravires.
It is pleaded that he has committed no wrong and no charge has been proved against him; no proper and fair enquiry was conducted against him according to the rules and regulations and the alleged enquiry was illegal and ultravires based on mere conjectures and surmises; no document, notice, chargesheet or copy of the report of the inspectorate was supplied to him to defend himself; no statement of any passenger or driver had been recorded nor cash of the plaintiff was checked by the raiding staff; the order has not been passed by the competent authority and is neither speaking one; no proper opportunity was afforded to the plaintiff to prove his case nor he was heard in person and the punishment awarded was excessive and unjustified.
He filed an appeal against the said order to the higher authorities which was dismissed by the Deputy General Manager (defendant No. 3) conveyed through letter dated 10.01.1989 of the Administrative Officer, P.R.T.C. Patiala. The appellate order, according to the plaintiff, is also illegal and ultravires as the same has been passed without taking into consideration the above said illegalities and irregularities and without going through the relevant facts and record and without hearing the plaintiff. With these allegations, the plaintiff sought a decree of declaration that the impugned orders are illegal and ultravires and he continues to be in the service of the defendants entitled to all service benefits.
3 3.
The defendants resisted the suit in their written statement. The employment of the plaintiff as Conductor was admitted but it was denied that he had unblemished service record. It was admitted that the services of the plaintiff were terminated by the Depot Manager, Barnala. The said order was, however, stated to be legal and valid passed after observing the rules and regulations. It was denied that the plaintiff was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself or the order suffered from any infirmity. It was further admitted that the plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed. It was added that the plaintiff was provided every opportunity to defend himself and was also heard in person.
The past service record of the plaintiff was also perused which showed that he was warned for 35 times, censured 5 times, suspended 7 times, and increments stopped for 17 times and he also once resigned and keeping in view this service record, the punishment of removal from service was commensurate with the misconduct. Two preliminary objections were raised that trial court had nо territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and the suit was not maintainable in the present form.
4.
From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: 1) Whether the orders dated 30.3.88 passed by defendant No. 5 and order of defendant No. 3 conveyed to the plaintiff through the Administrative Officer, defendant No. 4 vide letter dated 10.1.1989 are illegal, null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff? OPP.
2) Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD.
4 3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for? OPD.
5) Relief.
5.
Parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions.
6.
Learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 22.05.1992 after appreciating the evidence on the file, decreed the suit of the plaintiffrespondent.
7.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred appeal before the Appellate Court, which has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 08.10.1993.
8.
Learned counsel for the appellants contended that judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are based on conjectures and surmises. He further contended that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence available on record that a proper enquiry was conducted and showcause notice was served upon the respondent. He further contended that all the legal norms and rules were adhered to while making enquiry against the respondent. He further contended that judgments and decrees of the Courts below being against law are liable to be set aside and suit of the respondent plaintiff be dismissed. It has been wrongly held by the Courts below that the Courts at Bathinda has the jurisdiction to try the suit. 9.
Since no one appeared on behalf of the respondent, despite service, the matter was heard on 03.04.2024 and the judgment was
5 reserved. Thereafter, an application being CM3871C of 2024 was preferred by the legal representatives of the respondent and the same has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.04.2024 and legal representatives of the respondent have been brought on record. 9A.
Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the whole action has been taken by the appellants with predetermined mind as the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was considered by the same authority i.e. Deputy General Manager, who issued first charge sheet to the plaintiff.
10.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11.
Admittedly, respondent was working as Conductor with the appellantsPRTC and on 01.01.1987, he was deputed on bus No.PJG7417 from Barnala to Delhi. The said bus was checked at bye pass Rohtak. Perusal of the record shows that six passengers travelling from Julana to Rohtak and five passengers travelling from Lakhan Majra to Rohtak were found travelling without tickets from whom the respondentplaintiff had charged full fare. On the report of the Inspectorate, Deputy General Manager, PRTC, Patiala, served charge sheet upon the plaintiff accompanied by statement of allegations and list of witnesses. Respondentplaintiff did not file any reply and the Deputy General Manager appointed Sh. G.S. Mela, Legal Advisor, as enquiry officer to hold enquiry against the respondentplaintiff. The enquiry officer recorded the statements of three Inspectors and gave his report holding the charges proved. Thereafter, Deputy General
6 Manager issued showcause notice to the respondentplaintiff, to which he filed reply. Respondentplaintiff was called for personal hearing. He raised the objection that Depot Manager, Barnala, was the appointing authority, therefore, Depot Manager was supposed to issue the chargesheet. Hence, the Depot Manager was asked to issue fresh chargesheet. Thereafter, fresh chargesheet was issued by the Depot Manager. Respondentplaintiff did not file any reply to the said chargesheet. Enquiry officer was appointed, who recorded the statements of the checking staff and they were crossexamined by the respondentplaintiff. Respondentplaintiff did not lead any evidence and on consideration of the evidence, enquiry officer held the charges established.
Number of letters were issued to the respondentplaintiff for personal hearing, but he did not respond. Thereafter, Depot Manager issued showcause notice to the plaintiff for removal/termination from service. However, respondentplaintiff failed to respond and his services were terminated by the Depot Manager vide order dated 30.03.1988. Thereafter, respondentplaintiff filed departmental appeal, which has been rejected by the Deputy General Manager, vide order dated 10.01.1989. It is apparent from the record that all the legal norms and rules were followed while making enquiry against the respondentplaintiff. Respondentplaintiff failed to prove that due procedure was not followed while holding him guilty. Rather, lower Appellate Court has observed that a proper enquiry was conducted by the department.
7 12.
Even otherwise, the past record of the plaintiff shows that he was warned for 35 times, censured 5 times, suspended 7 times, increments were stopped for 17 times and he also once resigned. Further, the scope of interference by the Courts in disciplinary matters is very limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
has considered the scope of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings and has held as under:
! "
#$
"
%
#
&&'(&&)
"
*
$
+
+
,
+
$ $
$
%
$
+
$
%
+
8
+
$
$ $
+
$
$
+
- #
&&'(&&)
"
* .
/
+ .
/
$
+ .
/
+ .
/
+ .
/
$
.
/
$ + .
/
$
0
1 "
2 # 3
2 2 4$ 4 #"4 5' 2 $ )&$
* 6)
#
&&'
$
*
$
$
9
,
7
$
$
#
&&'
$
$
$
,
$
$ $
$
%
$
$
$ 8
$
,
$
$
$
#
&&'
6 9 " 2 # 3
:0 4.5)9/&2
99)
& &1
*
10 6& #
&&'
$ $
2 #3 224$4;
$
$
$
$ "
$
#
&&'
$
$
#
&&'
$
$
$
,
2
$
$
$
$
$
,
$
11
$ $
$
%
$
$
$
,
$
$
$
#
&&' && #
4 8
- " !
!
, 2
" !
,
%
$ $
$ <9 $ = 59'
>
$$
0
$
$
$
? =
> $$
? =
12 ?=
$$
& ,
#
&&'
,
%
#
$ "
$
$ $
$
$
$ #
#
$
$
%
,
22@0 A24 0 &1
$
13 ,
# $
,
,
$0
,
"
,
%
,
6
$$
B
:4A "
4
2 .5))/ &
15
$
% * 61 $
" >
#
$ #$
$ $
%
"
$
#$
$
$
0
" >
#
;
% 0
14
0
,
,
% % $
,
C
,$
$
D '"
7 2 2 8 = 8&E1.&/2 5*.&E1/12
E<
$
)C#
"
$
$ $
$
$ &<E&&EEE
* 6#
"
"
-
$
F
&5&
2 3 ?0
%
$
$
&5&
$ !
$
&5&
$
6 <
15 $
#$
%
,
#
&&'(&&)
" 5>
%
,
#
&&'(&&)
"
$
$ 0
"
$
0
!
$
,
$ "
C%
6$
+
6 "
0
$
$$
$%
"
$ $ D 13.
The said judgment has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in
!
"
#$ %%.
14.
In view of the above, appeal is allowed. Judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside and the suit of the respondent plaintiff is dismissed. Decreesheet be prepared accordingly.
16 15.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
26.04.2024 R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether Reportable :
Yes/No