Hvpn v. G.L.Sharma

IN T

HVPN Ltd.

G.L. Sharma

CORAM : HON

Present: Mr for

Mr for SUDEEPTI SH

1.

The

31.07.1998 pass also against the Appellate Court the judgment an

2.

Bri Division), Kuru G.L.Sharma, J.E HSEB) through show-cause not illegal, null and of plaintiff is du entire pay and consequential re the pensionary b

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Da

Versus

N'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE r.Arvind Seth, Advocate the appellant. r.Ravinder Jain, Advocate the respondent. -.-

HARMA, J.

e present appeal is filed again sed by the learned Civil Judge ( e judgment and decree dated 2 t whereby the appeal preferred nd decree dated 31.07.1998 was d ief facts of the case as mention ukshetra in suit for declaration E. against Haryana State Elect its Secretary and others for dec ice dated 23.4.1990 and office void and not binding on the plai uty period for all intents and purp allowances of the suspension elief of mandatory injunction dir benefits alongwith interest @ 18%

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-413-2002 (O&M) ate of Decision : 01.10.2024

....Appellant

....Respondent EEPTI SHARMA nst the judgment and decree da (Senior Division), Kurukshetra

29.08.2001 passed by the learn by the appellant/defendant agai dismissed. ned before the Civil Judge (Sen n are that suit was instituted tricity Board (hereinafter called cree of declaration to the effect t order dated 27.11 1992 are pa intiff and that the suspension per poses and plaintiff is entitled for period from the defendants w recting the defendants to release % per annum to the plaintiff.

ated ned inst nior by d as that artly riod with

3.

Pla HSEB and the service. There h was issued cha

28.2.86, No.55 false and frivo submitted his re placed under su been paid to hi Defendants hav against that ord of the period of without going

23.4.1990 allegi cut in the pensio to treat the su retirement as no

4.

It i

27.11.1992 vid transformer oil period of plainti the kind due and pleaded that im suspension perio for pay and allo not entitled to r

aintiff's case, in brief, was tha work and conduct of plaintiff have never been adverse entries arge-sheets No. 19 dated 28.1 dated 11.8.86 and No. CH95 d olous allegations were levelle eplies to the said charges well in uspension since December, 1984 im for suspension period and h ve relieved the plaintiff from se er plaintiff has made representa f undue suspension and pension through the replies of plaintif ing frivolous charges and have on of plaintiff, to recover the cos uspension period of plaintiff w on-duty period for all intents and is further pleaded that defendan e which defendants imposed r and the services of plaintiff ha iff w.e.f. 13.12.1984 to 23.4.199 d remaining charges of show-ca mpugned order is partly illegal od of plaintiff is to be treated as owances of the entire suspension recover the cost of 20 liters of

at he was permanent employee f was satisfactory through-out s in the ACRs of plaintiff. Plain

11.1983, No. CH50/LS-523 da dated 9.3.1990 vide which seve d against him and plaintiff h time. It is pleaded that plaintiff w 4 and subsistence allowance has he has not been re-instated so ervice vide letter No. 20.4.90 ation for the liquidation of the d nary benefits. However, defenda ff issued show-cause notice da tentatively decided to impose 1 st of 20 liters of transformer oil w.e.f. 13.12.1984 till the date purposes. nts have passed illegal order da recovery of costs of 20 liters ave been censured and suspens 90 has been regularised as leave ause notice have been dropped. I and liable to be set aside as duty period and plaintiff is entit n period and further defendants f transformer oil from the plaint

e of his ntiff ated eral had was far. dues ants ated 0% of ated of sion e of It is tled are

Plaintiff was no instatement and show-cause not Engineer, City plaintiff under s defendants have plaintiff is very any speaking or of plaintiff, this

5.

Up plaintiff was ch and the said cha the plaintiff. It i 1984 and the su could not be rei enquiry too cou Plaintiff retired

31.10.1989 on inadvertence, he plaintiff was rel

20.4.1990. Plain decided in the a frivolous charg Defendants had reduction shoul thorough enquir

ot retired by the competent autho the defendants have shown the tice without giving any date Division, Panipat in his letter suspension. It is further pleaded t e failed to consider the case of p much proved, he is not at all at rder with reasons. Since defenda suit was instituted. on notice, the appellant-defenda arge-sheeted on 28.11.1984, 22. arge-sheets were based upon con is averred that plaintiff remained ubsistence allowance was being instated because he did not file uld not be completed due to l d on 20.4.1990, whereas, he attaining the age of superann e continued in service till 20.4. lieved on 23.04.1990 in complia ntiff made no representation at absence of reply to the charge-s ges were levelled in the sho d proposed in the show-cause n ld be made in the pension of t ry and taking lenient view, 10%

ority by making proper order of plaintiff as retired in the subjec of retirement whereas Execut r dated 25.4.1990 has shown that despite several representatio plaintiff. When the innocence of fault as defendants have not pas ants have failed to admit the cla ant appeared and submitted that .2.1986, 11.8.1986 and on 9.3.19 ncrete and substantial proofs agai d under suspension since Decemb g paid to him as per rules. Plain reply to the two charge sheets lapse on the part of the plaint should have been relieved nuation i.e. 58 years but due .1990. It is further submitted t ance of letter No.30/EP/4196 da all and if any same could not sheet. It was denied that bogus ow-cause notice dated 23.4.19 notice that tentatively 10% cut the plaintiff. Lateron, after hav % cut has been waived and recov

f re-t of tive ons, ssed aim inst ber, ntiff tiff. on e to that ated t be

¶990t or ving

of cost of 20 l plaintiff. Plainti period as leave while taking len suspension perio that plaintiff did submitted any f to pay all the be to submission of delay, rather, th categorically de costs.

6.

Fro

liters transformer oil has been iff has been given concession b of the kind due to him. Lawfu nient view on account of retirem od of plaintiff has to be treated d not fulfill the requirement of su forms, documents for sanction of enefits to which the plaintiff foun f documents. Therefore, defenda he plaintiff himself is at fault. I enied the claim of plaintiff and om the pleading of the parties, th "1. Whether the charge-shee and 9.3.90 are illegal and vo plaint, if so to what effect?OP 1-A. Whether order dated period of plaintiff has been recovery of price of 20 liter o in the pension has been im binding on the plaintiff, if so

¶2Whether the show-cause n void, if so to what effect?OPP

¶3Whether the suit of the p present form?OPD

¶4Whether the suit is barred

n ordered to be effected from by way of treating his suspens ul order was passed on 27.11.19 ment of the plaintiff. It is denied t as duty period. It is further aver ubmitting pension forms etc. nor f pension etc. Defendants are re nd to be entitled as per rules subj ants are not at all responsible for In such like facts, defendants h d prayed for dismissal of suit w he following issues were framed: ets dated 28.11.83, 28.2.86, 11.8 oid on the grounds mentioned in PP. d 27.11.1992 whereby suspens n treated as leave of kind due a oil was ordered and 10% deduct mposed is null and void and to what effect?OPP notice dated 23.4.1990 is illegal a P plaintiff is not maintainable in d by time?OPD

sion that rred r he ady ject have with -

8.86 sion

7.

Aft learned Civil Ju holding that the the payment of respondent was interest @ 18 % till the date of ac

8.

The dismissed. Hen SUBMISSION

9.

Lea have passed t facts/evidence o per annum is als

10.

Per concurrent findi

¶5Whether the Civil Court h and try this suit? OPD

¶6Whether no notice as r Electricity Board Act was ser

¶7Whether the plaintiff is es from filing the present suit? O

¶8Whether the plaintiff has n

¶9Whether the defendants a CPC?OPD.

¶10Relief." ter hearing both the parties an udge (Senior Division), Kuruk ere was a delay on the part of th retrial dues to the plaintiff-respo held entitled to all the retiral du % per annum from the date of re ctual payment. e appeal filed by the appellant b nce, appellant filed the present ap OF COUNSEL FOR THE PA arned counsel for the appellant c the impugned judgment and on record. He further contends so on the higher side. r contra, learned counsel for the ing against the appellant and th

has got no jurisdiction to entert required under the Haryana St rved upon the defendants?OPD. stopped by his own act and cond OPD. no cause of action?OPD are entitled to special costs u/s 3 nd perusing the whole record, kshetra partly allowed the suit he defendant-appellant in releas ondent and, therefore, the plaint ues and arrears of salary along w etiral dues/arrears of salary accru efore the First Appellate Court w ppeal. ARTIES contends that both the Courts bel decree without appreciation that the interest at the rate of 1 respondent contends that there he suit for declaration filed by

tain tate duct 35A by sing tiff-with ued was low of 8%

plaintiff-respond before the First that since there appeal is liable t

11.

I h record of the cas

12.

Rel is reproduced as

dent has rightly been decreed an t Appellate Court has rightly be are concurrent finding against t to be dismissed. have heard learned counsel for se. levant portion of the judgment p s under:- "9. I have heard Shri A.S.P in first appeal no. 145 of second appeal no. 126 of Kaushik, Advocate for the ap of 1998 (51 of 1999) and for 145 of 1998, at sufficient len carefully.

¶10Shri A.S.Pabla, learn has challenged the impug

31.7.1998 on the ground tha court on issues No.3 to 10 evidence proved on the fil because the learned trial C No.4 being not pressed, w strongly contested this issue barred by time. Further, t interest on the delayed paym findings of the learned tria

nd the appeal filed by the appell een dismissed. He further conte the appellant, therefore, the pres the parties and perused the wh passed by the First Appellate Co Pabla, Advocate, for the appella 1998 and for the respondents f 1998/51 of 1999, and Sh. R appellant in second Appeal no. 1 r the respondents in first appeal N ngth and have gone through the f ed counsel for H.V.P.Ν. Ltd., gned judgment and decree da at the findings of the learned tr 0 are against the law, facts a le, and are liable to be set-as Court had is wrongly decided is whereas the appellants HSEB h e and had pleaded that the suit w the plaintiff was not entitled ment of retrial dues and as such al court on Issue No.3 are tota

lant nds sent hole ourt ants s in R.P. No. file etc. ated rial side ssue had was for

erroneous. The plaintiff wa conduct from tiling the prese sheeted on 28.11.1983, 2 plaintiff filed reply to the cha and as such the case and the the basis of the record by th show-cause notice dated plaintiff and reply of the pl considering the reply of the

28.11.1983 and 11.8.1986 w Litres of Transformer oil, a dated 28.2.1996, as per ru from the plaintiff from his p being held responsible short Similarly with respect to cha plaintiff did not file satisfa services were censured beca was proved that the plaitniff from one Hazara Singh for therefore, the suspension per to 23.4.1990, till date of retir kind due. Learned counsel fu no cause of action to file th been legally punished after findings of the learned trial been admitted as correct. Th

as estopped by his own act a ent suit as the plaintiff was char

28.2.1986, 11.8.86 and 9.3.19 arge-sheets 11.8.1986 and 9.3.19 e dated was considered ex-parte he competent authority. Thereaf

23.4.1998 was served upon laintiff was also considered. Af e plaintiff, the charge-sheets da were dropped and a recovery of as per charge-sheet No. 50/LS-5 ules, was ordered to be recove pending on account of the plain tage of 20 litres of Transformer arge-sheet dated 9.3.1990 also actory reply and consequently ause on the basis of the record f had demanded illegal gratificat showing undue favour to him, a riod of the plaintiff from 13.12.19 rement, was regularised as leave further argued that the plaintiff he present suit as the plaintiff r affording due opportunity. T l court on issues No.1 and 2 h hus, learned counsel for HVPN L

rge-e on fter fter ated f 20 ered ntiff oil. his d it tion e of has has The ave

etc. has submitted that in s plaintiff was liable to be dism

¶11On the other hand, plaintiff Sh. G.L.Sharma h Court while deciding issues suspension period from 13 period' and also did not allo the plaintiff with interest and order dated 27.11.1992 as ill Similarly, the learned trial recovery of 20 litres of Tran of the plaintiff, which punis any basis. Thus, the lear illegality and material irregu not allowing the claim of th findings in utter disregard o justice. It was thus argued decree dated 31.7.1998 be se

¶12I have given my tho contentions of the learned gone through the relevant re Charge-sheet dated 28.2.198 the recovery of price of 2 imposed upon the plaitniff, reply of charge-sheet dated dated 9.3.1990 is Ex.P4, sta

such circumstances the suit of missed with costs. Shri R.P.Kaushik, Advocate as argued that the learned. tr s No.1 and 1-A did not allow

3.12.1984 to 23.4.1990 as 1d ow the salary of the said period d also did not declare the impugn legal, null and void and bad in l l Court had wrongly imposed nsformer oil from the pending d shment is also illegal and with rned trial Court had commit ularity while deciding the case a he plaintiff and thus has given of the settled principle of law a that the impugned judgment a et aside to the above extent. ughtful consideration to the ri counsel for the parties and h ecord produced by both the part 86 is Ex.P1, vide which penalty 20 litres of Transformer oil w statement of allegations is Ex.

28.2.1986 is Ex.P3. Charge-sh atement of charge is Ex.P5, lis

for rial duty d to ned law. dues hout tted its ival ave ties. for was P2, heet

allegations is Ex. P6, charg statement of charge summa cause notice is Ex.P9, reply application is Ex. P11, office Ex.P12. All these documents plaintiff G.L.Sharma, on the place reliance upon the do suspension period of Ex.D9 letter dated 18.6.1995 as E Ex.D12, show cause notice Ex.D14, Office order dated retirement dated 23.4.1990 a for N.D.C. from all divisions order dated 27.11.1992 it plaintiff has been proved a shortage of 20 litres of recovered from his pending order for recovery of the pr has been passed, has not bee 1 R.S. Sardana in his exam Transformers which were in handed over to anybody whe these transformers bearing 1833/57-S.C.E.-25-KVA wer other transformers in Divisi transformers were found c

ge-sheet dated 11.8.1986 is Ex. ar of allegations is Ex.PB, sho y of show cause notice is Ex.P e order No.146 dated 27.11.1992 s have been placed on record by e other hand, HVPN Ltd. etc. h ocuments: letter regularisation 9, reply of the plaintiff as Ex.D Ex.D11, letter dated 31.8.1995 as Ex.D13, letter of payment,

27.11.1992 as Ex.D-15, Order as Ex.D18, and letter of 13.10.19 s as Ex.D19. In Ex.D-15, the off is stated that charge against and he was held responsible Transformer oil which is to g dues. How in what manner rice of 20 litres of Transformer en explained, as it is stated by D mination-in-chief that two damag n charge of G.L.Sharma were en G.L.Sharma was retired and b g no. 2825 DKT-100 KVA a re got deposited by him along w ional Store, karnal, and both th ontaining less 10 litres oil ea

P7, ow-P10, 2 is ave n of D10, as as r of ffice for be r oil DW-ged both with hese ach,

which is clear from the stock stock of the measurement bo in cross-examination he a plaintiff remained posted in plaintiff was suspended. He know many transformers we the year 1984 but the transf deposited by him in the store and this fact has been mentio stated that on those transfo were under the control of th possession of the record on that these damaged transfor the plaintiff. He also did mentioned in Exs. D1 and D were removed from the site admitted that, as per rules, t kept which is in possession of an entry is made in the regi out from the transformer as transformer was working p testing the working of tran minute, then oil of the transf the transformer and efficien good by putting extra oil up put in the transformer

k measurement book, Ex.02. A co ook has been placed on record. admitted that he along with n the year 1984 and thereafter e further admitted that he did ere in the charge of the plaintiff formers lying in the complex w e of H.S.E.B. Karnal, on 27.3.19 oned in Exs.D1 and D2. He furt ormers it was not written that t he plaintiff and he was also no the basis of which he could st rmers were indeed in possession d not know when transforme D2, were installed and when t and sent to H.S.Ε.Β. complex. transformer maintenance registe of the J.E. and after every six mo ister and two bottles of oil is ta s sample just to know whether properly or not. If as a result nsformer is less than 40 K.V. p former after heating is put back ncy in oil of transformer is ma pto the requisite level and extra is entered in the transform

opy But ff in were 985, ther they t in tate n of ers, they He er is onth ken t of per k in ade oil

maintenance register. He f brought the Transformer Ma he also did not take into cha Register while taking cha admitted that when two b transformer as sample, some and some of the oil is also some oil were consumed on of the oil used to evapora admitted that he did not kno was given to the plaintiff for leave of any kind due.

¶13Thus from the stateme that the department was d pertaining to transformers and 1833/57/S.C.E.25 KVA charge and control of the pla and the Department was transformer maintenance reg the oil in the transformers ha remained under the contro These facts have neither be Ex.D15 nor in the statement opinion, the department had the price of 20 litres of t without any basis. Similarly

further admitted that he had aintenance Register in the court a arge the Transformer Maintena arge of the plaintiff. He furt bottles of oil are taken from e of the oil also falls on the grou wasted on that account as well account of burning and about ate during one year. He furt ow whether any show cause no r treating his Suspension period ent of DWI R.S.Sardan,. it is cl duty bound to produce the rec bearing No. 2825-DKT-100 K to prove that they were under aintiff when the oil was found sh s also duty bound to prod gister to establish that shortage ad occurred during the period t l and supervision of the plain een mentioned in the office or t of allegations, Ex.P2. Thus, in d imposed the penalty of recovery transformer ail from the plait y, the allegations mentioned in

nce ther und l as 2% ther tice d as lear ord KVA hort duce e of they ntiff. rder my y of

charge-sheet No. 95 dated demanded Rs. 1000/- as ille connection as L.T. from of village Rajpur and threatene paid his case would be conv established by the depar convencing evidence as in mentioned when and where a made by the plaintiff from charge-sheet was issued to time of retirement, although the plaintiff was supposed continued in Service upto 2 and carelessness on the part suspended w.e.f. 13.12.19 allegation has also not been censuring of the plaintiff b without showing the record plaintiff clearly shows that the plaintiff on 23.4.1990 admittedly no charge-shee employee. On the face of i fabricated story by the depa suspension because other tw and 11.8.1986 were dropped

d 9.3.1990 that the plaitniff h egal gratification for the release of one Hazara Singh, resident ed in case demanded money was verted into H.T. had also not b rtment by leading cogent a the charge sheet it is no wh and on which date this demand w m Hazara Singh. Moreover, the plaitniff on 9.3.1990 i.e. at as per date of birth of the plain d to retire on 30.10.1989 but

23.4.1990 on account of sleckn t of the department as he remain 984 to 31.10.1989. Thus, established by the department a elieving this allegation to be t d and necessary documents to this charge-sheet was served up when he had been retired a et could be served upon reti it, it seems to be a cooked up artment just to cover the period wo charge-sheets dated 28.11.19 d by the department.

had e of t of een here was this ntiff, he ness ned this true pon ired p a

CONCLUSION

13.

A judgment shows interference by t

14.

So allowed to the e appellants are, t date of decision of 18%, if alrea be recovered fro

15.

Dec

16.

Pen

October 01, 202 A.Kaundal

Whethe

Whethe

¶14Thus, from the above d no charge-sheet, worth the remained suspended for ab withheld by the department ordered for recovery of fur proper enquiry.

¶19The learned trial Cou of 18% per annum on the withheld by the department. the impugned judgment passe N:- perusal of the above referred s that it is a well reasoned and sp this Court. far as interest part is concer extent of reducing the interest a therefore, directed to pay the inte n of the present appeal. It is ma ady paid to the respondent, till th om the respondent. cree-sheet be drawn accordingly nding application(s), if any, also

(S

er speaking/non-speaking : Speak er reportable

: Yes/N

discussion, it is clear that there w name, against the plaintiff and bout six years and his dues w and 10% of out of his pension w rnace oil, without conducting a urt has awarded interest at the r e retrial benefits which has b I also do not find any illegality ed by the learned trial Court" to reproduction of the impugn peaking, which does not require rned, the present appeal is pa at the rate of 09% from 18%. T erest at the rate of 9% p.a. from ade clear that the interest at the r he decision of the appeal, shall y. stand disposed of. SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE king

was d he were was any rate een y in ned any artly The