State of Haryana v. Sl Punia

IN T

Haryana State an Sh. S.L.Punia

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Mr SUDEEPTI SH

The

19.01.2001 pass appeal filed by passed by the le BRIEF FACTS

2.

The as Executive En again from 01. Executive Engin was posted as under Rule 8 of vide memo date giving him oppo of Rs.51,265.40 was ordered. H

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS Da nd Others

VERSUS

ON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUD r. Shivendra Swaroop, DAG, Har r. Ajay Kumar Yadav, Advocate r. R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the re -.- HARMA, J (Oral). e present appeal is preferred aga sed by the learned Additional D the respondent against the judg arned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), H S e brief facts of the present case a ngineer in Rori Division, Sirsa f .04.1982 to 19.05.1986. Ther neer, Construction Division No.4 Executive Engineer Rori Divis f the Punjab Civil Services (Pun ed 09.12.1991. He submitted rep ortunity of personal hearing, vid 0 paise and stoppage of two inc He filed civil suit challenging o

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-2827-2001 (O&M) ate of Decision : 25.04.2025

....Appellants

....Respondent EEPTI SHARMA ryana. for espondent. ainst the judgment and decree da District Judge, Hisar, whereby gment and decree dated 31.07.20 Hisar, was allowed. are that the respondent was work from 01.01.1982 to 31.03.1982 reafter, the respondent worked 4, Fatehabad. When the respond sion, Sirsa, he was charge-shee nishment and Appeal) Rules, 19 ply to the same and thereafter, a de order dated 12.09.1994, recov crements without cumulative eff rder dated 12.09.1994, which w

ated king d as dent eted 987, after very ffect

dismissed by th decree dated 31

3.

The learned Additio

19.01.2001.

4.

Hen SUBMISSION

5.

Lea Court has revers evidence on reco held that impug appeal be allowe

6.

Per the judgment an respondent has taking into con punishment of s Rs.51,265.40 p dismissal of the

7.

I ha record of this ca

8.

Thi appeal stayed th the learned Firs

he learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divis .07.2000. ereafter, respondent preferred an onal District Judge, Hisar, vid nce the present appeal by the Sta OF THE LEARNED COUNS arned counsel for the appellants sed the findings of the learned T ord. He further contends that the gned order is non-speaking. Th ed. r contra, learned counsel for the nd decree dated 19.01.2001 and c rightly been allowed by the le nsideration the evidence on reco stoppage of two increments with aisa also amounts to double j present appeal ave heard the learned counsel fo ase. is Court, vide order dated 11.11 he operation of the judgment and st Appellate Court.

sion), Hisar, vide its judgment n appeal, which was allowed by de its judgment and decree da ate of Haryana. EL FOR THE PARTIES s contends that the First Appell Trial Court without appreciating e First Appellate Court has wron herefore, he prays that the pres e respondent argues on the lines contends that the appeal filed by earned First Appellate Court a ord. He further contends that h cumulative effect and recovery jeopardy. Therefore, he prays or the parties and perused the wh

1.2002, while admitting the pres d decree dated 19.01.2001 passed

ated late ngly sent s of y of for hole sent

9.

A p of Punjab Civil respondent and given to him.

10.

A p department was the respondent a appellant to issu respondent was fact and matter of filing reply as

11.

So concerned, the due to negligenc Singh, Canal Pa a civil suit at Sir by the Court to tune of Rs.51,26 loss because of t

12.

Ad following due p because of the c and decree date appellants as w Singh, Canal P

perusal of the record further sho Service (Punishment and Appe he filed reply to the same. F perusal of the record further sh conducted on the complaint an and after due consideration at a ue charge-sheet to the responden afforded an opportunity to expl of record that after giving due o s well as personal hearing), the im far as order of punishment of same is imposed since the loss ce of the respondent. In fact the atwari, to join his duties from 13 rsa, which was decreed in his fav pay him salary for this period

65.40 and it is matter of record the conduct of the respondent. dmittedly, in the present case th procedure as laid down under t conduct of the respondent, it is ev ed 26.04.1986, learned Additio well as respondent liable to pay atwari. And since it was the d

ows that charge-sheet under Rul eal) Rules, 1987 was issued to Further, personal hearing was a hows that an enquiry of vigila nd there were 11 allegations agai all the levels, it was decided by nt. Before serving the charge-sh lain his case. Further, it is admit opportunity of being heard (by w mpugned order was passed. recovery of Rs.51,265.40 paisa s was caused to the appellant-St e respondent did not allow Gurd .07.1983 to 08.05.1986 and he fi vour and the appellant was direc (13.07.1983 to 08.05.1986) to that the appellants had to bear t he punishment was imposed a the Civil Services Rules. Furt vident on record that vide judgm nal District Judge, Sirsa, held y the amount of salary to Gurd decision of the learned Additio

le 8 also ance inst heet tted way a is tate deep iled cted this ther ment deep

District Judge, S Rs.51,265.40 pa decree, therefor the respondent interference by t

13.

Lea facts and eviden of Rs.51,265.40 double jeopardy

14.

Fur filed by the res afresh, in accord recovery of R cumulative effec considering the

15.

In decree dated 19 and judgment a upheld.

16.

Dec

17.

Pen

April 25, 2025. tripti

Wh

Wh

Sirsa, vide which respondent wa aisa and the respondent never e this Court finds that recovery would not amount to double j this Court. arned First Appellate Court ha nce on record and further treated 0 paisa and stoppage of two incre y, which is not acceptable to this rther the learned First Appellate spondent gave liberty to Punishi dance with law, without apprecia Rs.51,265.40 paisa and stopp ct, was imposed by giving full o reply as well as after giving pers view of the above, the present

9.01.2001 passed by the learned and decree dated 31.07.2000 pa cree sheet be drawn. nding application(s), if any, also

(SU

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes

as held liable to pay the amount challenged the said judgment a of loss of Rs.51,265.40 paisa fr jeopardy, therefore, it requires as totally ignored all the admit d the punishment of recovery of l ements without cumulative effec Court. e Court while allowing the app ing Authority to decide the ma ating the fact that the punishmen age of two increments with opportunity of being heard i.e. a sonal hearing to the respondent. t appeal is allowed. Judgment a d First Appellate Court is set as assed by the learned Trial Cour stand disposed of. UDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE ing

t of rom tted loss t as peal atter nt of hout side